The controversy surrounding the so-called "culture loyalty bill," which would allow the government to withhold funding from cultural organizations "that are undermining state principles" is expected to peak on Monday, when the bill is scheduled to be presented for its second and third Knesset readings.
It should be noted, however, that while public discourse, especially by the bill's opponents, has linked "loyalty" to the state to cultural institutions' funding, the word "loyalty" is actually not included in the language of the contentious legislative proposal.
The bill does, however, grant Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev powers that were not vested in her predecessors: under certain conditions, she may deny state budgets to cultural bodies, especially theaters, should they "deny Israel is a Jewish, democratic state; incite to racism, violence, or terrorism; express support for the armed struggle or acts of terrorism against Israel by an enemy state or a terrorist organization; mark Israel's Independence Day as a day of mourning; or deface the flag or any other state symbol in any way."
One can cautiously assume that theater directors agree, in principle, that shows on their stage should not undermine state principles, but the power vested in the culture minister's hands raises concerns that she might take it upon herself to decide whether a certain show or event violets the law.
Still, the bill does not explicitly bar mounting a performance that includes all or some of the prohibited elements, providing that they are not showcased in a state-funded institution. The bill does not seek to censor freedom of expression and creativity, provided that taxpayers' money does not finance the cultural body in question.
That, however, is exactly what the heads of Israeli cultural institutions are worried about, the need to go through plays or scripts with a fine tooth comb for fear they would be denied funding, which could eventually amount to self-censorship for fear of violating the conditions that make them eligible for state funding.
What would happen, for example, to satire shows? In a free country satire, by nature, includes criticism of the powers that be – that's its cultural-artistic point. If the creators of political satire use state symbols such as the flag in their work, then under the new law, the culture minister would have the power to deny them funding. This is a slippery slope that may place some cultural institutions at financial risk to the point of endangering its existence.
Under these circumstances, the culture minister – a political figure – becomes a censor of culture and her potential ability to exercise her authority using the treasury is a frightening prospect, as she may threaten the very existence of cultural institutions if she decides that the performances they present "undermining state principles."
These scenarios are not far-fetched, which is why the Knesset would be wise to halt the legislative process and appoint an interim body to review the culture minister's decisions on the matter and annul them if need be, especially since it is safe to assume that any decision to defund a cultural institution over the nature of the content it offers will end up before the High Court of Justice.
Regev, for her part, is unlikely to agree to any diminution in her authority, so in all likelihood, and assuming the bill passes its readings Monday, we will see the vote usher in a new era of freedom of expression – or lack thereof.
