PALESTINE LAWS

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 61, 12 March 1936, Page 7

PALESTINE LAWS

FAST OF RAMADAN n

A REVERSED. JUDGMENT

Recently .attention was- called' tb;;an. interesting-"-judgment ■ given - by; the Chief British. Magistrate, in Palestine in a criminal case,. where a Moslem was charged .with, a public, violation of the' Moslem. Fast of Ramadan. .Although the act.was proved; the Magistrate -acquitted the -accused ,on :the ground that the Turkish law which constituted the offence was repugnant to an article qf the . 'rnand.'ai:a, ."which lays down that tnere .can, be no dis- J crimination -between the inhabitants of ! Palestine on the grounds.'of race or religion. "The Palestine-Order in Council, which prescribes the' law 'to be applied in .the courts, purports to maintain in force the Ottoman legislation as it.existed in November; 1914; but! the Magistrate held that the article could not maintain an Ottoman law which offended - against one of thr . principles of the Palestine 'mandate. -| ioOUBT JUSTIFIED. It was observed at the time that it would be interesting. to • see - whether

the higher Courts ■upheld • this bold decision, that, called' intb: question the supremacy of the Order of-the Crown. That doubt has been justified, because 'the-: District (Court' of. Nablus—the Biblical Shechem—which heard,an ap|peal brought by'the Attorney-General against.-the'-acquittal,- ;has* 'now1 reversed the judgment, states a writer in - the "Manchester Guardian." The Court expressly declared. that the power of the Crown to legislate in Palestine is not . subject to and governed by the terms of the mandate. An Order in Council, under which the Crown assumes jurisdiction in countries which are outside#its dominions, whether -'protectorates or mandated territories, has.-., an authority unchallengeable in any British court, even though it may .not :be .-, within the powers granted by the. treaty under which the Crown took control of the territory."' The position :of Palestine was in law indistinguishable from that of a protectorate or a dependency of the Crown. The previous case, where the'''highest Court;'in; 'Palestine' held invalid a bylaw" passed' by the municipal council of Tel-Aviv to enforce the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, was" distinguishable, because that bylaw offended against the canon of no discrimination on ■the. ground' of race or religion,- and -was contrary to. a provision in the Order in Council itself. The Government of Palestine cannot in future legislation make, any. discriminatioa- in • the • criminal or civil law :on

the ground of religion;'but it may still maintain the old Turkish law which recognised such; ar distinction. CONSIDERED: INVALID. It was argued.' further before'the Court of Appeal that the Ottoman law was invalid because' it 'offended against -another article of the Order^jn-Counci I, prescribing! that- -the.; ynhapiltants of Palestine, shall, .^enjpy,. freedom- of conscience .and iree exercise' ; pf their form of worship/ subject to/ the itnaintenance' of public; order-. and; i morals. Any law which prevented-a. Moslem, Jew,' or Christian i from'carrying but his religion with freedom'would .'offend against the article. But, it was held to be perverse to - suggest. that_ a law designed to protect• the■ -Moslem-re» ligion .among , Moslems was, of- that character. And although ,the law wajl not in express terms; restricted' trj Moslems, the prosecution of .-a- nonjMoslem was impossible,,/since■■ therewould be a - lawful ■ excuse for' eating and. drinking in public »by"'a -pfersda whose religion does not require hirft to observe the Fasi'of Ramadan.' Thfr Jaw of; Palestine about the ; Ramadan Fast is no more opposed to.freedom of conscience than" the English law retr quiring Sunday rest. ■ %