According to this conspiracy theory, High Court rulings are political and the court uses a carrot-and-stick method rather than an examination of issues to reach its decisions. Moshe Grylak, editor of the ultra-Orthodox newspaper Mishpacha, said at the end of last week that this is a case of "repeated deceit in the form of a ruling that glorifies the secular revolution followed by some sort of ruling which is more `Jewish.'"

Actually, there is no reason for the religious public to be content with the Work and Rest Law ruling. Comments by Justice Ayala Proccacia, who as a judge in a local court opened Jerusalem's movie theaters and cultural activities on Shabbat 20 years ago, were far more interesting than those made by Barak. The Labor Ministry grants Shabbat work permits for the most part in cases where vital services are concerned, like security, health, law and order and infrastructure, and for the operation of factories where continuous production is required. Businesses and institutions which operate on Shabbat without such permits either employ non-Jewish workers or break the law.

Proccacia said that the Minister of Labor must issue permits to meet the needs of secular culture on Shabbat, including public transportation, cultural institutions and theater. Proccacia joined Barak in rejecting a petition by the Design furniture chain. The court ruled that the ban on employment of Jews on Shabbat without a special permit does not impinge on the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation. However, Proccacia added that Shabbat serves social as well as religious purposes, and that citizens must be allowed "to enjoy recreation on the weekly day of rest for their physical and spiritual welfare, to enjoy the company of family and friends and to set aside leisure time for various activities - a life of culture and spirit, and a leisure culture which takes a form which suits their tastes and desires."

According to Proccacia, "The need for a balance between the religious and social aspects of Shabbat may sometimes justify an exception of the rule banning employment on Shabbat, to make it possible for an individual to design the content of his day of rest in accordance with his taste and to provide him with public structures which make it possible for him to exercise this right."

Proccacia said that according to the Work and Rest Law, the Minister of Labor may grant permits to work on Shabbat to "meet needs which are, in his opinion, vital to the public or a segment of the public."

"This broad authority," was created, according to her, "to guarantee vital needs of the public or segments of the public in the realms of spiritual and cultural life, art, leisure culture, and entertainment." This is in keeping with the principles of "freedom of religion and freedom from religion," she wrote.

"It is wise to recognize this," Proccacia wrote, "because in order to permit the realization of the individual's happiness and leisure culture, public structures are required to assist these pursuits and make them possible, including: public transportation which allows the freedom of movement of the public; the opening of museums and cultural institutions; the operation of playhouses and movie theaters; the existence of lectures and conferences; and related activity. The operation of these institutions may justify the granting of permits to work on Shabbat to those who operate them."

She stressed that the granting of such permits must be minimal and take into account the feelings of the religious community. In summary, Proccacia wrote: "Setting the form of Shabbat as a general day of rest may justify permits to work on Shabbat in appropriate circumstances, to facilitate the realization of this rest."

Bail? Only for 45 days

High Court criticism (We should "lament the legislative process which turned the Knesset into a useless tool") did not succeed in blocking the bypass-the-Knesset law called the Economic Arrangements Law. This grab-bag legislation amends dozens of laws in one go and prevents real deliberation on most of these changes, if not all. Only intervention by the Ministry of Justice, in other words, Attorney General Menahem Mazuz, forced the treasury to scale down the law this year and limit its reach to issues pertaining to the budget, leaving about half of its original clauses.

Against this background, it appears more than peculiar that the Justice Ministry presented its own grab-bag legislation to the Knesset in the form of the Court of Administrative Matters Bill. The declared intent of this bill is to increase the authority of the courts that work alongside the District Courts, functioning as a "mini-High Court" to relieve the burden on the High Court. The bill would increase the authority of administrative courts in the arenas of education, tenders and nonprofit organizations, as well as adding new areas of authority in matters like regulation of business and prevention of terrorism.

However, the Court of Administrative Matters Bill is apparently also intended to facilitate the passage of legislative amendments which are not necessarily connected to the courts. One such amendment pertains to the appellate process in the Planning and Building Law. Another amendment would bar granting bail for more than 45 days to a detainee slated for deportation.

The circumstances under which such individuals are granted bail are detailed in a position paper prepared by Sigal Rosen of the Hotline for Migrant Workers. Such cases typically involve exceptional problems which are not resolved in a month-and-a-half:

Detainees who are eligible to attain legal status - an issue which sometimes takes years to resolve.

Detainees who cannot be deported because they lack passports. Sometimes it is impossible to obtain passports for them, as in the case of citizens of Guinea.

Detainees with no citizenship. There is no appropriate country for deportation. These are usually citizens of the former Soviet Union who were not registered in any new nation. For example, A.B., a citizen of the former Soviet Union, was detained for months despite the fact that it is impossible to deport him.

Women in advanced stages of pregnancy or husbands of women in advanced stages of pregnancy. B.O., a Nigerian citizen, was detained in April 2004 at the beginning of a high-risk pregnancy requiring bed rest. She was released and left the country when her son became two-months-old.

Detainees about to immigrate to other nations like the U.S., Canada and Australia.

According to the bill, a permit from the Interior Ministry would be required to extend the 45 day bail period. "Experience has taught," wrote Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) Attorney Michal Pinchuk, "that most requests sent to the interior minister fail to provide desired results." Pinchuk said that this means the courts would be flooded with requests to order the interior minister to extend the bail period. Pinchuk added that this clause bears little, if any, relevance to the Court of Administrative Matters Law.

Rosen wrote that as the number of illegal residents in Israel decreases because of large-scale deportation, "The number of detainees who it is temporarily impossible to deport for various reasons, or who are considered candidates for bail for humanitarian reasons, increases." In the first three months of 2005 alone, the Hotline for Migrant Workers assisted more than 442 detainees in presenting requests to extend their bail period - 203 turned to senior border control officials and 239 turned to the Mishmoret Custody Court. An examination of statistics from 2004 reveals that about half of the requests to extend bail presented to the Mishmoret court were granted.

A 'miniature economic arrangements law'

Another problematic issue of the Court of Administrative Matters bill is a clause according to which the court does not require the existence of injured parties when issuing an order to close a certain area to prevent terrorism. The administrative brief to prevent terror, like other emergency protocols, now grants the nation broad and draconian authority resembling that of the British Mandate. The current proposal would actually increase that authority in a roundabout way.

The bill is being prepared for second and third readings by a legislative subcommittee of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee headed by MK Yitzhak Levy of the Religious Zionism faction. At the last meeting, Levy suggested that the clause pertaining to bail be removed and made into a separate bill. Representatives of the Justice Ministry requested that the issue be postponed to the next meeting, when the ministry's stand will be presented.

Levy agreed that an attempt was being made to transform the bill into a "miniature economic arrangements law." In his opinion, matters relating to the Planning and Building Law and the bail period of detainees slated for deportation rightfully belong to the Interior Committee, and should have been presented to that committee as separate bills.

"I have come to the conclusion that we cannot continue" with the Planning and Building issues, he said. He predicted that the bail issue will be treated is a similar fashion. He said that the committee has yet to discuss the prevention of terrorism issue.

An orderly legislative process

The Justice Ministry rejected claims that the Court of Administrative Matters bill was an example of grab-bag legislation. The ministry spokesman's office said that the amendments pertain to the transfer of authority to administrative courts and that such transfer of authority is not possible without them.

"In contrast to the Economic Arrangements Law, the process of transferring authority to the administrative courts has taken place in the context of a prolonged and orderly legislative process," the spokesman's office said. The office said that, under existing law, it is now possible to release immigration detainees on bail for a period of only 14 days, and that honest interpretation of the law does not allow this period to be extended. Thus, the ministry maintains that the proposed amendment would not reduce the bail period but rather multiply it by a factor of three.

The amendment to the terrorism prevention brief, according to the ministry, is protected in law by "years of standard practice in the High Court and the administrative courts."