Obviously there were complaints about those issues, or they would not have been brought to court. Public funds - which are derived mainly from the non-charedi portion of the community - should not be used at a segregated event. I'm just curious, was an option for 3 sections - men, women and mixed - offered as an alternative? I'm not fami…
Obviously there were complaints about those issues, or they would not have been brought to court. Public funds - which are derived mainly from the non-charedi portion of the community - should not be used at a segregated event. I'm just curious, was an option for 3 sections - men, women and mixed - offered as an alternative? I'm not familiar with the classroom case and wonder if female teachers were forbidden to teach male students. We live in Beit Shemesh in a religious Zionist Anglo community and are personally aware of the harassment of those outside the charedi community. Respect and compromise are alien concepts to certain segments of the charedi population, that is just a fact of life here. The level of corruption and intolerance we have witnessed amongst the charedi leadership does not engender confidence in their ability to compromise on issues crucial to the non-religious majority once given the power. Just because something has not been done before does not mean that - given the opportunity - it will not be done in the future.
Of course public funds are used for segregated events, and why shouldn't they? In any case, if I recall correctly there was no demand for a third section because there was no actual complainant who wanted to attend the event and sit next to someone of the opposite sex. This is a perfect example of what happens when the Court drops the traditional requirement for "standing": Anybody can sue the government because he doesn't like what it's doing, regardless of whether he's being harmed.
BTW, last week the TA city council forbid Haredim from having their 𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘥𝘢 because it was segregated.
None of this has to do with harassment, unless we're talking about the Court and the City Council harassing the Haredim.
Your lack of confidence in the Haredim manifests itself in your voting for someone else, as it should. Outside of that, it doesn't have any privileged position in Israeli law.
Your last statement is curious. Not only can things happen that haven't happened before, I'm willing to guarantee that things will happen that haven't happened before. I just don't which things or when, and neither do you. My whole contention is that there is insufficient basis for the claim that passing the override law will lead to tyranny. I don't have to explain why I'm not shouting to the whole world that it should strongarm the elected government into compliance with the wishes of the opposition, or promoting an economic collapse. People who are doing that should have really solid reasons, and they don't.
Perhaps that is a good example of SC overreach, which can then be discussed during negotiations. As to whether a publicly funded event (versus private) can be gender-segregated - well that's a slippery slope and another discussion entirely.
Your contention that "there is insufficient basis for the claim that passing the override law will lead to tyranny" is your opinion and obviously not one shared by the majority of citizens. As you have no worries you are welcome to keep your money invested within the country, just as those concerned about the future of civil liberties are well within their rights to withdraw their funds.
We've played this out, but I'll just mention in closing that you keep referring to rights as if someone's arguing for freezing people's accounts (as was actually done before the Likud came to power) or shutting them up. We've been talking about what people should do, not what they can do. Oh, and I seriously doubt that many of the people who are sure we're headed for tyranny are actually taking their money out of the country or buying gold and stocking their bomb shelters, as one would expect if they believed their own posters.
Obviously there were complaints about those issues, or they would not have been brought to court. Public funds - which are derived mainly from the non-charedi portion of the community - should not be used at a segregated event. I'm just curious, was an option for 3 sections - men, women and mixed - offered as an alternative? I'm not familiar with the classroom case and wonder if female teachers were forbidden to teach male students. We live in Beit Shemesh in a religious Zionist Anglo community and are personally aware of the harassment of those outside the charedi community. Respect and compromise are alien concepts to certain segments of the charedi population, that is just a fact of life here. The level of corruption and intolerance we have witnessed amongst the charedi leadership does not engender confidence in their ability to compromise on issues crucial to the non-religious majority once given the power. Just because something has not been done before does not mean that - given the opportunity - it will not be done in the future.
Of course public funds are used for segregated events, and why shouldn't they? In any case, if I recall correctly there was no demand for a third section because there was no actual complainant who wanted to attend the event and sit next to someone of the opposite sex. This is a perfect example of what happens when the Court drops the traditional requirement for "standing": Anybody can sue the government because he doesn't like what it's doing, regardless of whether he's being harmed.
BTW, last week the TA city council forbid Haredim from having their 𝘢𝘥𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘥𝘢 because it was segregated.
None of this has to do with harassment, unless we're talking about the Court and the City Council harassing the Haredim.
Your lack of confidence in the Haredim manifests itself in your voting for someone else, as it should. Outside of that, it doesn't have any privileged position in Israeli law.
Your last statement is curious. Not only can things happen that haven't happened before, I'm willing to guarantee that things will happen that haven't happened before. I just don't which things or when, and neither do you. My whole contention is that there is insufficient basis for the claim that passing the override law will lead to tyranny. I don't have to explain why I'm not shouting to the whole world that it should strongarm the elected government into compliance with the wishes of the opposition, or promoting an economic collapse. People who are doing that should have really solid reasons, and they don't.
Perhaps that is a good example of SC overreach, which can then be discussed during negotiations. As to whether a publicly funded event (versus private) can be gender-segregated - well that's a slippery slope and another discussion entirely.
Your contention that "there is insufficient basis for the claim that passing the override law will lead to tyranny" is your opinion and obviously not one shared by the majority of citizens. As you have no worries you are welcome to keep your money invested within the country, just as those concerned about the future of civil liberties are well within their rights to withdraw their funds.
We've played this out, but I'll just mention in closing that you keep referring to rights as if someone's arguing for freezing people's accounts (as was actually done before the Likud came to power) or shutting them up. We've been talking about what people should do, not what they can do. Oh, and I seriously doubt that many of the people who are sure we're headed for tyranny are actually taking their money out of the country or buying gold and stocking their bomb shelters, as one would expect if they believed their own posters.