Legal protest leads to administrative order

Wednesday, November 2, 2016, 11:15 For the first time the Central Command has admitted, in writing, that legal protests opposite the residences of public figures were the reason for issuing an administrative order distancing a youth from Yehuda and Shomron. A Jewish youth whose one-year administrative order distancing him from Yehuda and Shomron expired last week received a notice from the Central Command informing him that the GOC Major-General Roni Numa intends to issue a new administrative order distancing him from Yehuda and Shomron for an additional three months.
Contrary to the past, when orders were issued based on claims that the recipient is personally involved with violent incidents, the announcement stated that the reason for issuing the order is that, “the recipient is known as someone who instigates protest activities and acts of provocation opposite the residences of public figures.” Also the youth “attempts to instigate others to carry out violent acts.” In light of that, the return of the youth to Yehuda and Shomron is liable to lead to “endangering the security of the area.”
The youth has indeed organized several demonstrations opposite the residence of the GOC of the Central Command and that of the Head of the ISA. However the demonstrations were legal and authorized by the police. Honenu notes that even if he had organized illegal demonstrations, that does not justify issuing an administrative order. All administrative orders are issued without a trial and without any evidence being presented.
Recently the Central Command announced their intention to issue orders and, as a result of the petitions filed by Honenu Attorney Menashe Yado on the matter, to allow the recipients a hearing. Honenu also notes that the announcement of the intention to serve the order was given to the youth after the previous order had expired, which is contrary to the decision by President of the Military Court of Appeals, Judge Col. Netanel Benisho, who ordered the Central Command to inform of the intent to extend the order a short time before the order expires, in order to complete the hearing proceedings before the expiration. In a decision given in a similar case when an Adei Ad resident returned home with his family and received an additional order approximately two weeks later, the judge ruled that such conduct compromised the rights of the recipient.
Honenu’s staff members, who have been providing the youth with legal counsel, responded: “For a long time we have claimed that the administrative orders are not democratic. At least now it is written black on white, and also the Central Command admits, that the basis for an administrative order which is served without presenting evidence at a trial, might be, legally protesting opposite a public figure’s residence.”