פרוטוקולים/ועדת חוקה/4567



5
ועדת החוקה, חוק ומשפט
08.01.02


פרוטוקולים/ועדת חוקה/4567
ירושלים, כ"ה בשבט, תשס"ב
7 בפברואר, 2002

הכנסת החמש-עשרה נוסח לא מתוקן
מושב רביעי




פרוטוקול מס' 415

מישיבת ועדת החוקה, חוק ומשפט
מיום שלישי, כ"ד בטבת, התשס"ב (8 בינואר, 2002) בשעה 11:45

חקיקה נגד טרור

חברי הוועדה: אופיר פינס – פז - היו"ר
זאב בוים
נסים זאב
שאול יהלום
אליעזר כהן
יוסף לפיד
אמנון רובינשטיין

יהודית קרפ – המשנה ליועץ המשפטי לממשלה
אלן בייקר – היועץ המשפטי של משרד החוץ

פרופ' אירווין קוטלר
ג'ימל איישווילי
סיד מתיאס
ג'ק בלום
בן בריסקו
מתיאס ארושי
אגוסטין זבר
אנדרו פליישמן
ג'רי גרפשטיין
פיטר הורוביץ
סטפן קזימיר
נחום ברגשטיין
מייקל דנבי
אגון לנסקי

סיגל קוגוט

דורית ואג

לאה קיקיון



חקיקה נגד טרור

I would like to open this meeting of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Knesset. We are having a special meeting today with Jewish Parliament members from all over the world. I am going to speak in Hebrew. The speeches will be translated, so that everyone can speak in whatever language he chooses.

אני רוצה, ברשותכם, להודות לכנסת, ליושב ראש הכנסת ולצוות שפעל מטעמו, לחברת הכנסת קולט אביטל, שנדמה לי שהיא עשתה במלאכה מטעם חברי הכנסת, ולפורום הישראלי, על היוזמה החשובה בעיניי ובעיני חברי כנסת אחרים ששמעתי את דעתם בעניין. אנחנו מכנסים את הכינוס הזה בכנסת, בירושלים, בשבוע הזה. אני סבור שהמכנה המשותף בינינו הוא באמת רחב. קודם כל – כולנו פוליטיקאים, נציגי ציבור, נבחרי ציבור. שנית, כולנו מייצגים אינטרס מאד מאד חשוב. כולנו בני עם אחד – למרות שאצלנו, בכנסת, יש כמובן חברי כנסת שאינם יהודים, אבל בפורום הזה כולנו בני העם היהודי. כולנו חרדים להמשכיותו של העם היהודי, וכולנו חרדים לביטחונה, שגשוגה, וחיזוקה של מדינת העם היהודי, היא מדינת ישראל. על רקע בסיס הפעולה המאד יציב וסולידי הזה, אני חושב שצריכה להתפתח גם תוכנית עבודה ממשית, אופרטיבית, פרגמטית, שיכולה לגרום לכולנו לשתף פעולה על נושאים שחשובים לנו. למשל, הנושא שהוא היום על סדר היום, נושא המאבק בטרור העולמי. זה נושא שהוא חיוני. זה נושא שבהחלט מסכן את ביטחונה של מדינת ישראל, מסכן את ביטחון תושביה. זה נושא שברור לכולם היום שהוא לא רק בעיה של מדינת ישראל אלא בעיה של מדינות רבות וחברות רבות בעולם. לכן אני חושב שנושא מהסוג הזה חייב להיות נושא שבו העמדות שאנו מייצגים באות לידי ביטוי, לא רק בישיבה הזו ובכנס הזה, אלא בהרבה מאד מפגשים אחרים.

כולכם מכירים את ה- IPU, ארגון הפרלמנטים העולמי. חבר הכנסת זאב בוים ואני מייצגים בו את ישראל. אנחנו רוצים להביא לכינוס הקרוב במרוקו שורה של החלטות בהן אנחנו נדרוש מכל הפרלמנטים בעולם להילחם בטרור. גם אתם מייצגים פרלמנטים, והיה חשוב שהפרלמנטים שאתם מייצגים יבואו בדיוק עם אותן דרישות לכינוס במרוקו, בחודש מרץ הקרוב. זו לא צריכה להיות רק דרישה של מדינת ישראל. לי חשוב שזו תהיה דרישה של קנדה, של צרפת, של אוסטרליה ושל כל המדינות, כדי שלא יתקבל הרושם כאילו שרק את ישראל מטרידה בעיית הטרור וששאר המדינות אדישות לבעיה. זו דוגמה אחת ליכולת שלנו כחברי פרלמנטים מכל העולם לשתף פעולה באופן אמיתי, על דבר שהוא חשוב מאד לכולנו.

הישיבה הזו היא ישיבה שחייבת להיות תכליתית. לצערי, בגלל שאתם משתתפים בעת ובעונה אחת בחלק גדול מאד מישיבות ועדות הכנסת היא צריכה להיות קצרה, באופן יחסי. בפתיחת הישיבה נאפשר ליהודית קרפ, שהיא המשנה ליועץ המשפטי לממשלה, להציג את עמדת משרד המשפטים בכל מה שנוגע לחקיקה הקיימת והחקיקה שנמצאת בהכנה, בנוגע למאבק בטרור. ארווין קוטלר יציג את הצד הקנדי או האוניברסאלי - אני לא יודע בדיוק.

אני אציג את שניהם.

אלן בייקר רוצה גם הוא להתייחס לעניין ברמה המשפטית והלגליסטית. לאחר מכן נקיים דיון ממוקד של חברי הפרלמנטים היהודים והישראלים.

יש לי הצעה לסדר. אנחנו כל הזמן מדברים אליהם, ואנחנו בקושי שומעים מה יש להם לומר. אני מציע שניתן להם לדבר יותר, ואנחנו נדבר פחות.

אני אנסה להיות תמציתית. ראשית, כחברה לשעבר בפורום הישראלי, אני רואה לי לעונג להשתתף במפגש הזה, שהפך כבר למסורת. התבקשתי לדבר כאן על החקיקה בישראל בתחום של מניעת הטרור. כיוון שישראל משחר היווסדה מתעמתת ללא הרף עם מלחמות וטרור, יש בה סדרה ארוכה של דברי חקיקה שעוסקים בתחום הטרור, בהגדרת עבירות, בהגדרת סמכויות למלחמה בטרור.

סליחה שאני עוצר אותך, שכחנו להציג את הנוכחים. אני אופיר פינס-פז, ואני ממפלגת העבודה, ואני יושב ראש הוועדה. לצידי פרופ' אמנון רובינשטיין מ"מרצ", שהיה יושב ראש הוועדה לפניי, והיה גם שר החינוך. לידו – חבר הכנסת אליעזר כהן, מסיעת "האיחוד הלאומי", ולידו חבר הכנסת טומי לפיד, יושב ראש מפלגת "שינוי". נמצאים אתנו גם חבר הכנסת זאב בוים, יושב ראש סיעת "הליכוד" ויושב ראש הקואליציה, חבר הכנסת נסים זאב מסיעת "ש"ס", וחבר הכנסת שאול יהלום מסיעת "המפד"ל", שהיה גם הוא יושב ראש ועדת החוקה בעבר, וגם היה שר תחבורה.

אירווין קוטלר – חבר פרלמנט מקנדה, ג'ימל איישווילי מגרוזיה, סיד מתיאס מאילינוי, ג'ק בלום מדרום אפריקה, בן בריסקו מאירלנד, מתיאס ארשי מהונגריה, אגוסטין זבר מארגנטינה, אנדרו פליישמן מקונטיקט, ארצות הברית, ג'רי גרפשטיין מקנדה, פיטר הורוביץ מדרום אפריקה, סטפן קזימיר מרומניה, נחום ברגשטיין מאורוגוואי, אגון לנסקי, מצ'כיה, מייקל דנבי מאוסטרליה.

אני יהודית קרפ, המשנה ליועץ המשפטי לממשלה, וגם חברה בוועדת האו"ם לזכויות הילד. כפי שאמרתי, כיוון שישראל היתה צריכה להתמודד עם טרור משחר היווסדה, יש לנו שורה של חוקים שגם קובעים עבירות בתחום הטרור, גם נוגעים לסמכויות, גם עוסקים בתחומים כגון – מימון טרור, חילוט הון ששייך לטרור, פעולות אדמיניסטרטיביות כלפי ארגוני טרור, ושורה של חזקות ודרכי הוכחה בתחום הזה.

מבחינת סמכויות השיפוט של בתי המשפט, למדינת ישראל יש סמכות אקס טריטוריאלית לשפוט בעבירות שהן עבירות נגד המדינה או נגד העם היהודי. בהקשר הזה, אני חושבת שיכול לעניין את המשתתפים כאן, שבחוק העונשין במדינת ישראל יש לנו סעיף שקובע שלבתי משפט בישראל יש סמכות לשפוט אדם שעבר עבירה נגד יהודי באשר הוא יהודי. זה אחד מהביטויים הנדירים בתחום דיני העונשין, שהמאפיינים של מדינת ישראל כמדינה יהודית באים לידי ביטוי בהם. מלבד זאת יש למדינת ישראל סמכות שיפוט אקס טריטוריאלית על כל עבירה שנעברת כלפי תושב או אזרח של מדינת ישראל.

רשימת החוקים שלנו היא מאד ארוכה. היא כוללת את הפקודה למניעת טרור משנת 48, שהיתה אחד מדברי החקיקה הראשונים שנחקקו במדינת ישראל ועדיין משרתת אותנו בתור דבר חקיקה ראשי בהתמודדות עם הטרור. יש לנו את תקנות ההגנה – שעת חירום, מ- 1945, שהן מורשת מהשלטון הבריטי. מדינת ישראל, משום שהיתה במצב חירום לאורך כל התקופה, לא ביטלה את התקנות האלה ועדיין עושה בהן שימוש. יש פרק בחוק העונשין שעוסק בהתאגדויות אסורות, סעיפים בחוק הטייס, עבירות שבשיפוט חוק הטייס – ביטחון התעופה האזרחית, שעוסקים בעבירות ואמצעים נגד טרור במטוסים. חוקקנו בשנת 2000 את חוק איסור הלבנת הון שגם הוא משתייך בחלקו לנושא של מלחמה בטרור, משום שהטרור הוגדר בתור עבירת בסיס שהמלחמה בהלבנת הון מסתובבת סביבו. כתוצאה מכך, במדינת ישראל, העברת כספים או הלבנת כספים שמקורם בטרור, או שמיועדים לטרור, היא עבירה לפי חוק הלבנת הון. מכוח החוק הזה, וגם מכוח כל החוקים האחרים שהזכרתי, אפשר לחלט את הרכוש הזה. אני רוצה להזכיר גם את חוק המעצרים המינהליים שקיים במדינת ישראל, שמאפשר מעצרים בדרך אדמיניסטרטיבית במקרים שבהם אי אפשר להגיש כתב אישום וללכת על המסלול הפלילי. אנחנו נמצאים עכשיו בשלב של חקיקה של חוק למאבק בארגוני פשיעה. זו הצעת חוק שקובעת יסודות של עבירה חדשים לעניין הפשע המאורגן בישראל, וכמובן שההצעה הזו מתייחסת גם לפעולת טרור.

ההגדרות של העבירות במרבית החקיקה שהזכרתי מתייחסים למילוי תפקיד בהנהגה של ארגון טרור, לחברות בארגון טרור, לפרסום דברי שבח ואהדה, לפרסום קריאה לתמיכה בארגון טרור, החזקת חומר תעמולה, העמדת מקום למפגשים, מימון טרור ועוד שורה של עבירות שהעונש עליהן נע בין 20 שנות מאסר לבין חצי שנת מאסר.

אני חושבת שלא ראוי שאכנס לפרטי החקיקה בסקירה הקצרה שלי. אני רק רוצה לציין כאן נושא שאני רואה לעצמי חובה להעלות אותו במעמד כזה. אני רוצה לציין את המאבק המיוחד של מדינת ישראל בטרור באמצעות חקיקה ואכיפה כמאבק מתוך רצון לשמור על האיזון שבין זכויות אדם לבין המאבק בטרור. האיזון הזה הוא מאד קשה והוא הולך ונעשה קשה יותר ויותר ככל שהתופעות של הטרור מאיימות יותר. העשייה במשרד המשפטים, וגם בכנסת, היא ניסיון בלתי פוסק להתמודד על שמירת קו הגבול הנכון בין זכויות נאשמים, בין זכויות אדם מבחינת חרויות הפרט,לבין הצרכים של המאבק בטרור. אנחנו – אני מוכרחה לומר בצער, נמצאים בצומת דרכים מאד קשה היום. בגלל ההתעוררות של מדינות העולם להילחם בתופעות הטרור בצורה נחושה ובלתי מתפשרת, אנחנו מוצאים נטייה וחקיקה שבאופן ברור מטה את כף האיזון בין זכויות לבין צרכי המלחמה בטרור, לכיוון המלחמה בטרור. אם ניקח את ארצות הברית בתור דוגמה, החקיקה שקבעה את נושא בתי המשפט הצבאיים, שבמסגרתם אמורים להיות מועמדים לדין חברי ארגון "אל קאעידה" מתוך שלילה של זכויות יסוד של הליכי משפט הוגנים, מתוך שינוי הרכב שופטים, מתוך דילוג על שקלולים ואיזונים אחרים – זה מעמיד קושי מסוים בהעמדת האיזון הנכון כפי שמצאנו אותו עד עכשיו.


אני מאמינה שאנחנו חייבים ללמוד מהניסיון, לא לשקוט על השמרים, ולמצוא את הדרכים ואת החסרים שיש בידי כוחות הביטחון והמשטרה למאבק בטרור. עם זאת, אסור לנו לשכוח שאנחנו מדינה דמוקרטית, שבה זכויות הפרט הן זכויות יקרות ושאם אפשר לומר שהטרור עשוי להצליח במשהו, זה לא בעובדה שלא נוכל להתגבר עליו באמצעים צבאיים או באמצעים אדמיניסטרטיביים אלא זה יכול להיות בעובדה שמדינת ישראל תאבד את האיזונים והריסונים שלה לעניין זכויות אדם, וזה הוא הצומת שאני חושבת שהוא צומת קשה מאד.

תודה. אני רוצה לציין שכמובן, במדינת ישראל, כל החקיקה הזו עומדת כל הזמן בפני ביקורת שיפוטית מאד אינטנסיבית. יש אצלנו אין סוף פניות לבית המשפט העליון בשבתו כבג"ץ, ובשבתו כערכאת ערעורים, כך שהדברים אצלנו הם תחת עין פקוחה של בית המשפט העליון, שבין היתר צריך לאזן בין אותם דברים שיהודית קרפ דיברה עליהם.

I will speak in English, mainly because it appears to be the common language of most, if not all the members of Parliament from outside Israel, and the language understood by Israelis. It has been said all over the world that on September 11th the world was changed. I do not know if the world changed on September 11th, or whether what was revealed with the evil underside of the world that was already there, but what is clear is that September 11th has impacted on our politics and on our psychics. I can just say in one general sentence: there was no discussion of terrorism, let alone a counter terrorism policy on the Canadian Parliamentary agenda before September 11th. None. In fact, before I became a Member of Parliament, some two and a half years ago, as a Law professor, I recommended to them a counter terrorism Law and policy. There was no reaction or response by the Canadian Government at that time. Since September 11th, the question of counter terrorism has dominated the Canadian Parliamentary agenda, and just before we came to Israel we in fact adopted a comprehensive counter terrorism Law for the first time. There were hearings before both Committees in the House of Commons, which is the elected group of representatives, and before the Senate that held hearings on the legislation, so we had the two chambers, the House of Commons and the Senate that held hearings on the legislation.

What I would like to do now is summarize the essential principles that underline the Canadian legislation. This is in line with what the chairman said. I am going to try to summarize principles that could apply in any country that seeks to enact anti terrorism legislation. That could be useful for the International Parliamentary Union meeting that the chairman mentioned, and also relate to the particular concern that Yehudith Karp mentioned, and which we had in Canada, and which I suspect are another jurisdiction, namely the tension between counter terror legislation and civil liberties.

Let me begin with the first principle, what we have called: “the protection of human security”. In other words, counter terrorism Law and policy is very often discussed in terms of national security versus civil liberties. It has been our view that this is a misleading characterization of counter terrorism legislation. The counter terrorism legislation intends to protect human security, which involves the protection of both the security of the democracy and civil liberties. In other words, and to sum up this first point: counter terrorism legislation is human rights legislation. It is intended to protect the most fundamental of rights, the right to life, liberty and security as a person.

This brings me to the second point. The fact that counter terrorism legislation is intended to protect human rights and human security does not mean that there are no civil libertarian concerns. I can tell you that before our Parliamentary Committees these civil libertarian concerns dominated the discussion. I will even add: most of the non-Governmental human rights organizations in Canada that came before our Parliamentary Committees opposed the draft legislation. They felt that the draft legislation went too far. I am going to summarize very briefly the collection of concerns raised by all the civil liberties organizations in Canada, in one line: one was that the definition of what constitutes a terrorist activity must be narrowed and circumscribed. If it is over-broad it will infringe on legitimate protest, advocacy, etc. even when it is otherwise addressed by the criminal Law.

Two, the element of mens rea of guilty intent is required for every terrorist offense. Number three- that we have to protect against any unreviewable or unfettered exercise of authority by the executor. For example, there was an attempt in the draft legislation to allow the Minister of Justice to declare information prohibited and that the disclosure of information which he or she stated was a matter of national security or a national defense or international relations, with no juridical review, with no Parliamentary oversight, with no involvement of our information and privacy commissions, etc. That was changes in the course of discussion.

Four, that we need comprehensive oversight approaches, in other words: juridical review, Parliamentary accountability, etc. In the draft part of the legislation, the judiciary with respect to the Canadian chart of rights and freedom which we have, which is the bill of rights, while there was justifiability for the anti terrorism legislation, and still is, there was an attempt in the draft legislation to exclude the application of the court in certain particulars. That has been changed.

Finally, there is what I would call: ‘‘a minority rights concern’’, in particular, Moslem and Arab groups in Canada came before the Committee to say that they were concerned that they would be singled out for differential treatment, for example racial profiling. They said that since September 11th that was already happening, and they wanted to be sure that this would not happen in an unfortunate application of the Law.

Third principle, which is called: ‘‘ the zero tolerance principle’’.In other words: terrorism from whatever core or cause, for whatever purpose, is held to be inadmissible and illegal. The notion that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter, we stated in our preparation of this legislation is simply confusing. There can’t be, as we put it, good or bad terrorism. As the Secretary General of the UN himself stated: ‘‘the prohibition of terrorism is a universal principle of humanity’’.

The fourth principle, the contextual principle, that is that any counter terrorism Law and policy must take account of the nature of this trans-national existential threat of terrorism. What September 11th revealed is that we have a new Phenomenon. I will summarize my own summary of it before the committee. Some of the features of this new terrorism included Israel knows just too well: the increasingly lethal or violent face of terrorism as in the deliberate mass murder of civilians in public places, the increasing incidents of terrorism that are associated with political, ideological or religious extremism, the growth in threat of destructive economic and cyber terrorism, which seeks to paralyze the civilian infrastructure, the teaching of contempt and the demonizing of the other as preparation for acts of terror, the potential use of weapons of mass destruction, which has become more imminent, with the discovered evidence, for example, that the Bin Laden group was seeking to access such weapons of mass destruction. Tomi Lapid in fact warned us against the combination of both acts of terror and use of weapons of mass destruction in our earlier meeting this morning. What is particularly relevant to all Parliamentarians here, and of course in Israel, is the increased vulnerability of open and technologically advanced societies, like Canada, Israel, the U.S. and the Europeans, etc. to this threat of terror.

If I can sum it up, we are dealing with the trans national super terrorist, suicide bomber, who benefits from modern communication and transportation, with access to global sources of funding, is trained in trans-national terrorist networks, enjoys base and sanctuary, is harbored by governments and states like the Taliban in Afghanistan, but not only there. This would also include the harboring of terrorists by states like Syria or Iraq, Sudan and the like, is educated and knowledgeable in the modern use of explosives, etc.

This brings me to the next principle, what we call: ‘‘the international criminal justice moral’’. In other words, we are not dealing with a domestic criminal. We are dealing with the trans-national criminal. We are not dealing with domestic crimes, we are dealing with crimes against humanity. Therefore, the domestic criminal justice moral is insufficient and inadequate. We need an international criminal justice system. That means, and this will be relevant for the IPU, that no one state alone can combat terror. It has to be an international combating of terror. Two-that all states must become state parties to the 12 anti terrorism treaties and enact domestic legislation to give effect to those 12 anti terrorism treaties and including the recent United Nations Security Council resolution.

The 6th principle is called ``the prevention principle``, that the raised on net for counter terrorism legislation has to be organized around a culture of prevention and preemption, of preventing the attack before it occurs, rather than bringing to justice people after it occurs. You want to try and have in your legislation investigative and criminal procedures that will be of a preventative character, rather that just bringing terrorists to justice after the fact. Our legislation includes new and novel approaches in that regard. I will not go into them now, I am just using them as an example, as they are under the principle of prevention.

The 7th principle is proportionality. Because the threat is extra ordinary, the legislation has to be extra ordinary, but even if it is so, it has to be proportionate. I think that this is understood. The 8th is what you would call here in Israel: ‘‘the draining of the swamp principle’’. By that we mean that there has to be a national and international commitment to deny base and sanctuary anywhere to terrorists and terrorism, including measures that will penalize state sponsors that give terrorist movement any aid or comfort whatsoever, and the national and international commitment, as Yehudith Karp mentioned it with respect to Israel, to starve all terrorists organizations of any financial support or access to arms. Therefore, this has to be cut off.

Finally, we have an anti-incitement principle in our legislation. We have extended the prohibition against the teaching of contempt, if you will, the promotion of hatred and contempt. We have extended this now to the Internet and to all forms of communication. Therefore, all forms of communication that will seek to incite people to commit terrorist acts are in fact regarded as criminal and terrorist offenses under this legislation. They were criminal offenses before this legislation. They now characterizes terrorist offenses under this
Legislation and they have been extended to hate on the Internet and the like.

So these are the 9 principles, these are some of the civil libertarian concerns, but we have tried to approach it that anti terror legislation is legislation to protect human security.

Have you shifted the burden of proof in your legislation?

No. We have not shifted the burden except on one part, and I do not want to go into details. It is an important part. We have a situation whereby the Solicitor General, when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an individual or a group is a terrorist organization to list them as a terrorist organization. He does not have to get the approval of Cabinet. Than it is the burden of terrorist organization acts to remove itself from that list, either by representation to the Solicitor General, and if that does not succeed, access to the Court, and seek juridical review to get them removed. I should say that I was one of those who felt that the terrorist organization should first be given notice and a hearing, and only after that be listed, but the feeling of the majority of legislators was that this would undermine the struggle against terrorism, and that they should be listed first, and then they have the right to apply.

In the Uruguayan Parliament nothing was changed after September 11th, because we focused on the international law, not on the internal law. In the internal law we try that the definition of terrorism will be politically applicable, not only technically. We have internal laws concerning motivation to produce general fears. Instead of trying to define the offenses we try to concentrate on the motivations to produce general fear in the population. For us, the international law is very important, and we have a struggle with the left wing parties in our parliament to approve the international treaties, that impose the obligations. They sometimes approve internal laws at a later stage, but basically we are trying to approve international treaties and extradition treaties, because historically the terrorist crime begins as an exception to the political crime in the framework of extradition. Now, in a new extradition treaty we included a definition of a terrorist crime and it was finally approved and this will be an internal Law in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, plus Bolivia and Chile.

The terrorist crime is an international crime. The danger is international. We don’t speak about organizations. We speak only about a network, together with drug dealers, and crimes like sexual abuse of children. We are absolutely focused on the international legislation, and the consequence should be that legislation should be the same all around.

I found Prof. Cotler‘s exposition very interesting. I have some questions: this list of terrorist groups or organizations that you mentioned is going to be an international list of organizations around the world, wherever they operate. If that is so, how are you going to be noticing all these people that are going to be in the list?

Second-every act of this organization, I think I understood that, is considered a terrorist act because it comes from this organization, whatever it is.

The first thing, the determination as to whether an organization is a terrorist organization to be listed as such, is one that I said that is effectively made by the Canadian Cabinet on the recommendation of the Solicitor General, following upon information that is received from intelligence agencies all over the world, but an independent judgment made by the Canadian intelligence agencies and then make the recommendation to the Solicitor General, and that makes the recommendations to the Cabinet. The notice is the same as, for example, now we have frozen the assets of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the like. There was a debate in the Canadian Parliament, as we have initially frozen the assets of the military wing of Hamas, but not the political wing of Hamas. Somebody said: who are you going to give notice to-the military wing and not the political wing? So the position now is: once an organization is declared to be a terrorist organization, and it is so listed, than everybody in Canada is put on notice, that any cooperation with, financing of, participation with, etc. will be committing a criminal offense, so it will be applying to Canadians to put them on notice, that any involvement that they have with that listed terrorist group will subject them to a criminal offense, and anyone of those terrorist groups that is found in Canada could be brought to Justice within Canada.

I have a great deal of experience, unfortunately in this arena, but from the other side. In South Africa, when the Nationalist Government took over, and instituted their racist dictatorship, they instituted many other things that Irwin Cotler has been defending here. For instance, they would list organizations as communists. Like the good Nazis that they were and are, the question of who was a communist was decided by the Minister.

There are certain essential elements in this anti terrorist legislation that make me very uneasy, and it is a worldwide phenomena. One is detention without trial. The Nationalists started with marshaled detention without trial. That became 90 days detention without trial. As the man was released from jail he was arrested at the entrance to the jail, and it became 180 days. Then it got, inevitably, as it had to be, an indefinite detention. That gave the political police a Carte Blanche to torture. A great deal of torture was electronic torture with attachments to men’s` testicles, and so on. I am very reluctant now, at this stage in my life to adopt such kind of legislation that Irwin Cotler is talking about. It really may not be necessary. You should get to a stage where your civil society is threatened by terrorism. The mechanism even in our new Constitution, and I think it is a very good Constitution, and there is no part of this legislation that could be passed that would not be subject to constitutional attack. If you declare a state of emergency there has got to be very drastic considerations. But where we are going to go into legislation that shifts the burden of proof? In our old legislation you were a communist until you proved you were not a communist. You are now a terrorist in Canada until you prove you are not, and so on. I think that if we are going to have that kind of legislation, I am determined that I am going to opposed it within my party. We are not going back to that. It is simply too dangerous.

אדוני היושב ראש, חברים יקרים. אני פרופסור לספרות רומנית באוניברסיטה של בוקרשט, אבל בפרלמנט אני חבר בוועדת החוקה, כדי לשמור שלא יהיו בחוקים שגיאות דקדוק. אצלנו, ברומניה, הפילולוגים היותר מפורסמים היו תמיד יהודים.

ועדת החוקה שלנו דנה לאחרונה בחוק למיגור הטרור. נוכחנו לדעת כי אין בידינו הגדרה מוחלטת של הטרור, מהנקודה המשפטית. אהיה אסיר תודה לנוכחים אשר יעלו את חוות דעתם בנושא הזה.

Before we come to the issues of constitutional law, the issue of counter terrorism since September 11th and the issue of Al Kaida in particular, the thing that has surprised many of us is the level of Saudi involvement in this. These people were Saudis, their families come from Saudi Arabia and the funding seems to come from Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi mentality that Al Kaida is trying to distribute throughout the western world, including faraway places like Australia and Indonesia seems to come from Saudi Arabia. Because Al Kaida is a threat not just to the U.S., because they are so veritably anti Semitic, it is a personal danger to each of us. Each Western country in the world should deal with it in a much more serious way. I will particularly point you to the example of Afghanistan. The Saudis, according to the experts in Afghanistan, and we have one international-standard professor in this, took all of the orphans of the war with the Soviets, and were inculcating them in Madrasehs on the boarder with Pakistan for years. This is where these fanatics were trained. These are the man with the black turbans who would kill their own people without mercy, without any understanding, who would welcome these Al Kaida people into their country. I think that the issue of Saudi funding of fanatic Moslems all around the world is one of the most important counter terrorist things that needs to be done, in the particular Israel’s ability to influence the United States is something very important that you should consider. One of your colleagues suggested that the most important thing is not just to kill the mosquitoes but also to dry out the swamp.

Yes, we said that.

You have heard me twice addressing the question of terrorism in the convention, and I am very glad that this is being brought up here. I listened to what Prof. Cotler said. He is able to say in 5 minutes what other people can say in 5 hours. I want to pick one sentence of what he was saying. The terrorists in some places, and this applies to the terrorists that we fight, are taking the high moral ground saying that their terror is a good terror. They may say- what are you complaining about us, Mr. Begin was a terrorist acting against the British regime, and if this had been approved why what they do should not be approved too. There is a major change in public opinion, in public morals, in history, that make this thesis today unacceptable. I think that all of us, in our respective Parliaments, have to fight this moral issue. President Bush, and Cofi Anan have already brought it up. I suggest that all of us should stick to the idea that there is no such thing as good terrorism or bad terrorism. Terrorism is bad even if some people believe in the cause that is behind it. We have to fight this, because if we don’t do it, then it will be impossible to dry the swamp, because there is a moral issue that supports the swamp. This is something that we should all look at.

I want to go back to the issue that the Chairman mentioned in the beginning of the meeting, when he talked about the next IPU Convention. It is going to take place on March 16th this year in Morocco. I will have to explain to you the difficulties of the Israeli delegation in becoming a full member of the12 plus group. Most of the group members are Europeans, including some other countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. What we need is your support by trying to figure out and see who will represent your Parliaments in the IPU. Please speak with them and try to convince them to support our request to become full members. Until now we are in the status of observers only. This is very important to us. We started this process almost a year ago when we were in Cuba last April, and we continued very successfully in Ouagadougou. At the end of this process, the last decision will be given in Morocco.

We are having difficulties with Ireland. They voted against us.

If I can elaborate on that, I would like to tell you that I was at the IPU in Jakarta, and I was voting the right way there. The IPU is an inter Parliamentary Union. It is a Union of Parliamentarians, who do not represent our Governments, but represent themselves and their own views. Unfortunately, within our Parliament there are a number of very strong pro Palestinian people. In fact, our former Minister for Foreign Affairs apologized for me having voters against lifting the sanctions from Iraq and I have to level him at the Foreign Affairs meeting when I stated that I was not speaking for the Government as such. That is the point. Ireland has a very bad record on that, I’m afraid.

We know what the situation is but we still think that we have to do our best in order to try to influence on what is going there, although we know that there is an automatic Islamic and other countries opposition.

Many countries were divided in the IPU. If a country has 11 votes, it is almost impossible to obtain a majority.

I spoke about the 12 plus, because according to our experience we can make it and gain the votes of this group supporting that Israel should become a full member. Second, We are going to raise the issue of the international terror in the IPU. We are voting in the assembly about 2 supplementaries that will be discussed. So, if you can speak with your colleagues in your parliaments to support these items, that the assembly should adopt these issues at the supplementary of the convention.

Prof. Cotler and the Attorney General did a very nice job of talking about the reactive measures that democracies can take to deal with terrorism, but I think our colleagues must also point the way to some pro active measures that we can take. I agree 100 % with the observations about the funding of these Madrasehs that teach the kind of extremism and then praising them, that leads to the actions like we have seen on September 11th. Those privately funded Madrasehs arise largely because in many of your neighboring Arab nations there is so little public funding of education that there is a void. The rich Saudis and others who fund these Madrasehs fill that void. Extremists and fanatics need not fill that void. If we as democracies decide that we are prepared to increase foreign aid for education in nations like Pakistan and others that have insufficient funding we can fill that void and have these young Arab Moslems educated for the 21st century as opposed to the 11th century. I mentioned that not just for our Israeli friends but also for all of us international parliamentarians to be thinking about. I think that especially as Jewish parliamentarians we should take that to push our nations to do more to fund such education, and, of course, anti-poverty measures, economic development measures, that will, again, help us ensure that we have less people who will be prepared to take their own lives in their hands.

My name is Allan Baker, I am the Legal Advisor of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Like my Israeli predecessors, MK Boim and Mk Lapid, I have a couple of requests to all of you here in dealing with your fellow parliamentarians and with your governments and foreign ministers. I will list one or two requests that we would like to address to you.

First of all, I don’t know whether you are aware of it or not, but in the UN there is presently a process going on to draft a comprehensive convention against terrorism. This is a draft convention initiated by India. The aim was to have it completed at the last session of the General Assembly in October-November, as an answer by the UN to the 11th of September act of terror. The reason that this failed was because in the comprehensive definition of terrorism the Arab states proposed taking out of the definition acts carried out in order to free territories from occupation in the name of self determination. This was considered to be so scandalous by the European countries, the Americans and the Secretary General himself, that the convention failed to be completed.

It all began with the Indians.

Right. This is continuing. At the end of this month, this session is going to re-open with the aim of trying to complete the convention. What we are asking is that you, within your own frameworks do whatever can be done to influence your foreign ministry delegations or your governmental delegations or parliamentary delegations to ensure that this distinction between terrorism which is impermissible and terrorism which is permissible not enter such an important international convention. This is one request that we have.

The second request refers to something that Irwin Cotler mentioned, which is a very positive development, and it is the inclusion of incitement into the Canadian anti-terror legislation. What we found in our discussions with other countries is a great hesitation to deal with incitement. The Americans are afraid that it will violate the freedom of speech and the constitutional amendments, and so are other countries. We consider incitement to be one of the basic components of terrorism. Anybody who is familiar with our agreements with the Palestinians would see that incitement is a central feature, which is completely violated by the Palestinians. We think it very important to encourage parliamentarians, politicians, and international diplomats to push the idea of some type of international inclusion of incitement into anti terrorism conventions.

The third thing, which is mostly directed to our European representatives, and I think it is the representative of Ireland – I don’t know if you are aware of the fact that there is a European list of terrorists organizations. Hizballah, Hamsas and Islamic Jihad have not been included in this list. The Europeans are very hesitant despite our pressure and despite pressure by others to put these organizations into this list. Any help that can be given about it will be useful.

Our Prime Minister requested it yesterday.

The final thing is just to inform you Israel’s formal response to the Security Council resolution on terrorism giving a very detailed report in English of Israeli legislation against terrorism and Israeli activities against terrorism has been published and represented to the United Nations on the 27th of December. I am not sure whether it is on the Foreign Ministry website but I will be very happy to give anyone who is interested a copy of it, as it gives full information on Israeli activities.

Is Hamas on that list?

No, It is not on the European list.

As a senator I was very much involved in the review of the legislation. I just want to respond to my friend, Peter Horwitz. One of the democratic answers to excessive use of police powers to deal with counter terrorism is parliamentary surveillance. We discussed the way to handle that question in Canada. The amendment that I proposed was rejected, it was that there would be an independent officer of parliament, separate from the government to review any systematic violations under the legislation. That was not accepted by our parliament, but what has been accepted is an annual review that has to be carried by both the Attorney General and Solicitor General dealing with the application of this legislation as it applies to terrorism in all of its forms.

So there will be a parliamentary and public review on an annual basis. It is not as satisfactory as an independent review, but at least the committees of the parliament will be able to hear them. That is the large measure, in my mind how I see that this issue can be dealt with in a democratic way.

I want to hear about the larger question of the use of the international law. In the light of that you raised the issue of Israel’s inclusion in the IPU. There is no question why it should not be, and I hope that we in Canada will do what we can to assist. The key for me is something that I saw in the Knesset yesterday, and that is the Declaration of Independence. Take a look at the last Paragraph of the Israeli Declaration of Independence from 1948. It says that Israel will be faithful to the UN Charter. It strikes me that because terrorism is in Israel, because it is across the street, in the next neighborhood, the question is: why does the UN Charter apply to Israel but does not apply to the neighbor next door, that uses the UN as a methodology to obtain international legal legitimacy. The Charter is very clear. It says that you have to uphold the rule of law. I don’t know why there hasn’t been a precondition to all the preconditions in the negotiations with the Palestinians. One of the preconditions is that they uphold the rule of law, which is the application of international regulations, treaties and conventions dealing with international terrorism. I don’t hear any debate in the public media while we had this great debate about civil rights in the rest of the world, why there isn’t civil rights application of anti terrorism legislation in the Palestinian Authority? It has an authority, they have rule making and I haven’t heard of any debate about what they done.

The reason is that it is a terror entity.

That is not the point. The point is that they want to achieve self-determination. To take a look at the principles of self-determination under Willson, he said that you can self-determined if you are bound by the rules of Law. So, at the end of the day, my approach to this is to change the international dialect. The international dialect is: let’s punch Israel for anti democratic situations, and on the other hand, somebody that is using the democratic weapon does not use it again itself. So anytime I want to hear about anti and counter terrorism in Israel I’d like to hear about what the status of counter terrorism legislation in the Palestinian Authority.

It is not a good time for conclusions, but I would like to thank all of you for your remarks, ideas and suggestions. I think that we have the ability to do something about it in our parliaments, in the European parliaments, in the IPU, and in many other forums, and it will work as coordinately as possible. I think that we can obtain some real achievements. I would suggest that all of us would be in touch. Maybe there would be some kind of mechanism that everyone will be updated of what is happening in other countries. Maybe we will be able to update one another every one or two months on a regular basis. Thank you again, and have a pleasant visit at the Knesset.


הישיבה ננעלה בשעה 13:15