During the summer months of Bein HaZmanim, the city of Haifa was prevented from holding a concert by Chasidic singers Motti Steinmetz and Mordechai Ben David because the concert was for men only. The courts ruled that such an event could not be run by the city because it was excluding women.
Last month, Bchadrei Charedim published an article outlining the plans of the city of Haifa to hold an event exclusively for women inside City Hall. The event was supposed to honor the women who have excelled in public service in the city.
Menachem Kaplan, a City Council member of the Chen party representing Degel HaTorah, submitted a suit to Dina Zilber, the Deputy Attorney General requesting her opinion on whether the meeting qualified as fulfilling its legal obligations in respecting both genders, or whether it falls under the category of being gender exclusive and thereby be illegal.”
[HATERS TARGET MBD CONCERT: A Performance in Haifa by MBD Challenged by Women’s Rights Activists]
On Sunday, Kaplan received an answer that was exceptional puzzling. Zilber replied and said that the term “gender exclusion” only applies to women and there is no such concept of “male exclusion”.
“In Israel, there is no trend of excluding men from the public sphere. There is no discrimination against men when it comes to using public resources or in terms of receiving services. This, compounded with the fact that excluding women from the public sphere is a widespread trend that needs to be fought, just as the government has made clear in a number of separate instances.”
[AGAIN: Another Separate-Seating Event Cancelled In Haifa]
The response continued, “There reverse and misleading use of language regarding the championing of rights, especially the claim that men are supposedly being excluded, does not represent an existing problem.”
Kaplan told Bchadrei in response to the letter that he received that “The only type of exclusion the I know of in the Jewish State is against the Chareidi public. It is time that we wake up from this and it would be better if it had happened already.”
(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
14 Responses
How do you say “Huhhhh?” in lashon hakodesh.? It is one of the great mysteries of Brias Ha’olam that on the eighth day, the Ebeshter must have created administrative law attorneys to interpret the rules governing all of the other creations of the prior six days plus Shabbos. Clearly, Adam harishon would never have been allowed to exclude Chavah from his man cave on Sundays if he had a bunch of the guys over to watch the game… (assuming of course, there had been other “guys).
The State treats women like disabled. Every place must be accessible to the disabled, but a place that exclusively serves only disabled may exclude abled people. This actually is DEMEANING to women, making them into nebechs.
In the same vien:
There are many groups that serve visible minorities, but a group that serves white is considered racist.
Think of Black History Month – imagine if there would be a White History Month?!
theres also no such thing as chareidi rights
they can be spoke against, made fun of, and disgraced because, hey, freedom of speech works one way here
Look on the bright side, at least that means were safe when it comes to women only shiurim as the courts won’t be able to use that law to force the organisers to let in men.
Seriously though, this is a stupid law and should be repealed. Anyone with common sense should see this. The real problem is that the supreme Court is appointed by a non democratic system, Israel needs a system like the US where the president chooses supreme Court judges to prevent judicial activism like in this case.
Well, that’s typical for leftists.
Ms Zilber is perfectly entitled to be stupid if she wants, but not at public expense. Her understanding of the terms gender and exclusion are clearly nothing to do with common sense or with a normal person’s grasp of reality.
It’s little wonder that, with people like Dina Zilber holding public office in Israel, the concepts of natural justice, morality and due process are rapidly crumbling in Israeli society.
If the consequences of her idiotic ruling weren’t so grave, this story would be hilarious. As it is, klal Israel will be much better off when Dina Zilber is either sacked, professionally discredited or is otherwise unable to continue her damaging term of office. May it be soon!
Ridiculous and outrageous as this is it isn’t news. I knew that would be the response as this has been the standard attitude among liberals for decades. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas put it “the only(moral) difference between the Jim Crow laws and Affirmative Action is which side you are on”
But that isn’t really true. The Jim Crow laws have no mainstream support from any mainstream American groups whereas Affirmative Action still has passionate liberal support.
To be consistent, that argument would mean things like women may enter male conveniences (“washrooms”) because of all the alleged historical discrimination against women (but men may not enter the women’s). As if historically a woman who entered a male convenience was somehow historically more discriminated against than a man entering a woman’s. But more to the point, this is in Israel that is known from its inception (war of independence) for its female fighters and shortly later for it female Prime Minister as early as 1969 (just 21 years after the creation of the modern state).
Rebetzin
Exactly
@georgeg “As if historically a woman who entered a male convenience was somehow historically more discriminated against than a man entering a woman’s”
Actually… a man entering a women’s “convenience” will likely be met with shrieks. A woman entering a men’s “convenience” is statistically more likely to come to physical harm.
> zaltzvasser
What are you talking about? The topic here is the law and courts. In reality, the man would be thrown in jail and once released required to register as a sex offender and required to disclose on relevant applications (like jobs or housing) his conviction. The woman may suffer some social condemnation as a prostitute and at most face some minor charges if disturbance of the peace or soliciting for prostitution.
“Think of Black History Month – imagine if there would be a White History Month?!”
It’d be pointless – the subject of History in general is mostly about “white” people.
A woman entering a men’s “convenience” is statistically more likely to come to physical harm.
Garbage. You just made that up. There are no statistics or facts supporting your claim, which is complete nonsense.
> Rand0m3x
You miss the point. Black history month is not about people with a specific colour of skin throughout history. It is specifically about boosting the image of people of particular skin colour by understating (more usually totally ignoring and close to denying) any “bad” thing they may have done and presenting them as blameless. And then touting accomplishments as if they were accomplished on their own against a sea of persecution by whites. It is not about “history” as a discipline at all. The nature of Western “white” history is “this white skin coloured person/group/ideology” did such-and-such a bad thing, usually against another white skin coloured person/group/ideology.