Judge David Gidoni... ruled that the “hurtful, degrading and discriminatory” signs put up by ultra-orthodox radicals “delivered a mortal blow to the rights of women in the city” and instructed Beit Shemesh to compensate the women for their “mental anguish”...
The signs include... “Dire warning: It is forbidden to walk on our streets in immodest dress, including slutty clothing worn in a religious style.” Another sign – posted near a synagogue – instructs women to walk on the opposite pavement....
२९ जानेवारी, २०१५
"Israeli city told to pay women damages after failing to remove 'modesty signs.'"
"Billboards in ultra-orthodox community bar women from certain buildings and pavements and warn against 'slutty clothing worn in a religious style.'"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४१ टिप्पण्या:
It amazes me that a couple of annoying signs up on a 2 block store strip in a small isolated neighborhood in a medium sized remote town in Israel become an international news item. You'd almost think The Guardian had it out for Israel.
In general the signs say "please dress in modest clothing if shopping here". Does a religious store owner not have a right to express his opinion? The signs _do not_ say "or you can't shop here".
And the signs are not gender specific - they would feel equally appalled about shirtless men wandering by.
Freedom to express yourself - unless it's for a moral or religious reason. Strange point we've come to.
(I live in the area of this story.)
Akiva, supposedly one of the signs said " “Dire warning: It is forbidden to walk on our streets in immodest dress, including slutty clothing worn in a religious style.”
Is that correct?
If so, who forbids this? Who decides if the costume in question is forbidden? What is the punishment for doing what is forbidden? Who administers the punishment?
Little is forbidden in America in terms of how people dress in public places. Therefore there is much that could be offensive in the eye of some other. Our solution is for the watcher to either advert the eye or tolerate that which offends. (Or so we say. We are imperfect in the administration.)
It would be good if these women would respect your tradition and belief, but can't he punishment process can be worse for the society than tolerating the offense?
Dire warning: It is forbidden to walk on our streets in immodest dress, including slutty clothing worn in a religious style.
I'm having difficulty with the "slutty attire worn in a religious style" concept. What keeps coming to mind is a woman totally nude except for black stockings, stiletto pumps, and a nun's wimple.
It seems that Beit Shemesh is missing out on a tremendous source of tourist dollars.
The poisonous disease of silly religious legalisms is ugly and thuggish whenever it is practiced, whether by Hasidic Jews, Catholics, Pentacostals, Baptists, or Hyper-Calvinist Presbyterians. It is almost enough to make you into an Episcopalian.
So the GOP had better steer clear of it this time out.
" the poisonous disease of silly religious legalisms"?
Why not "the poisonous disease of silly secular (or PC or lefty or anything else) legalisms"? What makes your non-religious nostrums any better?
Stories like this underscore the exceptionalism of the American approach to freedom of speech. The American approach also avoids having to explain why the ladies' mental anguish at having to walk by these signs entitles them to compensation, but the hasid's mental anguish at being subjected to public displays of immodesty does not.
In America, women are warned: no shoes, no shirt, no service. The Sluts are furious that they cannot expose themselves. The ambulance chasers are preparing a class action lawsuit on behalf of Sluts seeking compensation for "mental anguish".
Akiva may take comfort that my blasphemy usually takes on a Christian idiom. Protestant blasphemy is jejune yet dangerous; it's like switching the big screen TV in a Pittsburgh sports bar from football to show jumping. Catholic blasphemy is sexy.
The American approach also avoids having to explain why the ladies' mental anguish at having to walk by these signs entitles them to compensation, but the hasid's mental anguish at being subjected to public displays of immodesty does not.
What mental anguish could that be? Is it the "Oh, shit. Now we don't get to flog any sluts." kind of anguish?
Do they serve Manischewitz in ultra-orthodox community bars?
This "no sluts" crap is an old story. Need I remind the commentariat (especially Akiva) of this passage from King Lear ?
Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand.
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lust’st to use her in that kind
For which thou whipp’st her.
Zealot shaming.
Bruno had a problem
Quaestor wrote -
"Need I remind the commentariat (especially Akiva) of this passage from King Lear ?"
Of course you do because very few have memorized King Lear, and you are nothing if not pedantic.
But that aside, we have two dramatically different translations of the gist of the signs and I prefer to hold my tongue not knowing Hebrew. I hope Akiva posts again with further explanation.
If I understand the situation correctly, the signs were erected by private groups or individuals, not government officials, on private property. Although the signs purported to "forbid" certain conduct, those who erected them had no authority to "forbid" anything. Therefore, under US law, the signs would be protected as free speech.
Obviously, the spitting and such would not be protected and could and should be punished.
I am not an ultra-orthodox robot -- which reminds me that a couple of weeks ago a newsreader on ABC made reference to an "ultra-Jewish" group in Israel. I've known some ultra-Jewish people in my day but they were certainly unorthodox.
"What mental anguish could that be? Is it the "Oh, shit. Now we don't get to flog any sluts." kind of anguish?"
What mental anguish do the sluts get for being told people disapprove of their slutty clothing, that is any less ridiculous than the modest people offended by the slutty clothing?
Hmm?
"If so, who forbids this? Who decides if the costume in question is forbidden? What is the punishment for doing what is forbidden? Who administers the punishment?" The word "forbidden" here, probably "asur" in Hebrew, just means not allowed according to the religion. It is not threatening any punishment.
It all makes perfect sense to me.
The judgement was against the municipality of Beit Shemesh which had refused to remove the signs, ruled illegal two years ago. The municipality "...accepted the signs had been put up without permission and were discriminatory, but its leaders said they feared their removal might prompt violence. The court was told the signs had been removed “several times” but it was claimed they were put up again within minutes."
So, it would appear that someone - notice no shopkeepers or other individuals were fined or punished in any way - was placing illegal signage on the walls. And they're not small signs in shop windows, either. From what I can see in the Guardian article,they're practically billboards. The municipality had two years to comply with Israeli law and did not. The city claimed there was an overhanging fear of violence from those who were breaking the law by replacing those signs. These women bought suit against the city and won on what appear to be the legal merits, regardless of their underlying motivations. Feminism? Anti-segregation? All that and more? Who knows, and does motivation in this case even matter, especially when the law that buttressed their case had already been decided.
I think we can agree that the Israeli legal definition of free speech and expression differs somewhat from that of United States law, and should really not be an issue on the thread except perhaps as a means to compare or contrast.
Akiva: " "please dress in modest clothing if shopping here."
That reminds me of a sign I saw above the urinals in the men's room at Gulliver's Restaurant in Irvine, California: "Lilliputians, please stand close."
- DEC (Jungle Trader)
MikeR said...
"If so, who forbids this? Who decides if the costume in question is forbidden? What is the punishment for doing what is forbidden? Who administers the punishment?" The word "forbidden" here, probably "asur" in Hebrew, just means not allowed according to the religion. It is not threatening any punishment.
Interesting. Thanks.
The content of the signage isn't the issue. Parsing the language from Hebrew to English doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether there is a threat of punishment written on the signs or not. The fact that the signs had already been ruled illegal when these women brought their case before the court is what matters.
Reminiscent of the story in Thursdays NYT at how some southern states are trying to ignore court rulings about SSM.
I expect a similar legal slap for ignoring clear court rulings, like these continually reposted signs in the face of prior rulings.
What if unknown persons in the U.S. were plastering "Whites Only" on shops and sidewalks?
You think the city could get away with doing nothing? Do you think the city would successfully defend its do-nothing policy by invoking the free-speech rights of whoever was posting the signs?
Do they make women wear burkas? Do they kill or throw acid on women for "dishonoring" their family? Do they prohibit girls from getting an education? Do they prohibit women from driving or leaving home with being escorted by a male family member? If not, then it seems some people are lacking in perspective about harassing and surpressing women.
Yeah, Larry, its ok to keep beating your wife. This other people doing worse makes it ok.
America!
Althouse,
Point taken. However, I'd like to think that such signs wouldn't stay intact long enough for city officials to have to intervene.
Chef Mojo,
Thanks for your comments. It may not be the legal issue, but what the signs actually say is still important in judging how this story is reported. The version published in the story is quite provocative. Think about the Danish Mohammad cartoons. The versions published in much of the Muslim world contained contained two(?) additional decidedly more offensiuve cartoons that were not part of the original set.
The significant points here:
- Israel addresses separation of religion/state issues openly and with vigorous debate. Very seldom do people get injured (never mind killed) over these disputes, even women.
- Israel has an independent judiciary which can and does rule against the government (and the ultra-orthodox authorities, as well).
- Israel has a free press which reports on topics such as this. No offices are fire-bombed, or journalists murdered.
Compare and contrast.
Every time I hear a blame-the-west leftist say: "Even some Israelis are opposed to the government policy of {war,occupation,house demolition, whatever}", I say: well duh, Israel is a free country.
When the Palestinians are also allowed to disagree with their leaders without fear for their life, liberty, and property, then we'll be on our way to peace. Until that time, nothing short of total destruction (of one side or the other) will achieve that objective.
I find it somewhat amusing that (as others have noted) this is an international news story, because of some signs. Sounds like a real "first world" problem to me.
No word on the Islamic practice of executing gays or rape victims. No NOW protests, no LBTG marches in Iran. Interesting. I wonder if there is any correlation between how people are treated in Israel verses how people are treated in most ME countries that could explain the difference? Maybe something in the country's basic legal foundations? Hummm? What could it be?
Think I agree with Akiva on this one. A small town, Orthodox, wants to have a local dress code. They don't even make it illegal, no enforcement; they just want to have signs up requesting that people comply. A national court awards damages to women feeling anguish from the signs.
Israel is not America, but I don't think we'd put up with that.
"What if unknown persons in the U.S. were plastering "Whites Only" on shops and sidewalks?" Having a dress code is the moral equivalent of racism? Not following.
Mark said...
Yeah, Larry, its ok to keep beating your wife. This other people doing worse makes it ok.
America!
No, asshole. It's about keeping things in perspective. If you want to talk about the so-called "War on Women", why not talk about where it is really happening? Instead of "micro-aggressions" and other petty first world problems, why not discuss where girls and women really have it rough to the point of being killed. Oh, some women in Israel are offended by some signs! Why, that's more worthy of discussion than women getting acid thrown on their faces.
Akiva said...
It amazes me that a couple of annoying signs up on a 2 block store strip in a small isolated neighborhood in a medium sized remote town in Israel become an international news item.
Don't be amazed.
According to the NYT, Ferguson, MO is one of the most important towns in the US: they ran 106 articles about it in 20 days.
"Point taken. However, I'd like to think that such signs wouldn't stay intact long enough for city officials to have to intervene."
Imagine a town where most people liked the signs or were afraid of the people who snuck around putting them up.
And you are admitting your reliance on the culture and not the law, in which case, what was the point about free speech? Culture or law?
"... including slutty clothing worn in a religious style.”
This sign would only apply to Madonna in the 80's and 90's so far as I can determine.
Slutty clothing in a religious style? I need pictures.
@Althouse: Your "Whites Only" hypo isn't apt, because we have laws that forbid racial segregation in public accommodations. Also you seem to assume that the signs are posted by anonymous people on property of others; free speech doesn't license you to co-opt the property of others to facilitate your speech. But if someone were to post a sign on her own property supporting a controversial cause (e.g., "marriage is between a man and a woman: oppose SSM", or "equal pay for women"), would 't that be protected speech in the US?
I would like compensation for the mental anguish I endured having to read stuff like this. Whom do I sue?
Althouse,
First of all, you ask me to imagine a town not part of your original hypothetical.
Culture or law? My comment relied on neither. All I said was "I would like to think..." But if you want to pin me down, I do believe that nearly all shop owners in today's America finding in an unbidden "whites only" sign posted on their property would promptly remove it themselves before "relying" on the law to do it for them.* That's all I meant. The sidewalk is another matter.
I granted that you had made a point. Why don't you go argue with those who directly challenged your hypothetical rather than nitpick me?
* - I do remember your post about Madison storefronts being pressured into posting pro-union signs. Frankly, that sounds like a more realistic scenario. Though the "law" issue may not apply.
@CWJ:
It may not be the legal issue, but what the signs actually say is still important in judging how this story is reported. The version published in the story is quite provocative.
It's interesting to contrast and compare how various Israeli news outlets have treated the story.
Jerusalem Post
Haaretz
The Times of Israel
Thanks for the links Chef.
One would expect there are larger issues for the Israeli press to concerned about.
It seems that Beit Shemesh is missing out on a tremendous source of tourist dollars.
You're sitting on a gold mine, Trebek!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा