פרוטוקולים/מעמד האישה/1419

2
הוועדה לקידום מעמד האישה – 1.12.1999

פרוטוקולים/מעמד האישה/1419
ירושלים, כ' באלול, תש"ס
20 בספטמבר, 2000

הכנסת החמש עשרה נוסח לא מתוקן
מושב שני

פרוטוקול מס' 20
מישיבת הוועדה לקידום מעמד האישה
שהתקיימה ביום ד', כ"ב בכסלו התש"סד, 1 בדצמבר 1999 בשעה 09:00

חברי הוועדה: היו"ר יעל דיין
קולט אביטל
זהבה גלאון
נעמי חזן
אליעזר כהן
סופה לנדבר
דליה רבין פילוסוף

ניצב יאיר יצחקי, מפקד מחוז ירושלים, המשרד לביטחון פנים
נצ"ב שאול נעים, קצין אח"ק, מטה ארצי, המשרד לביטחון פנים
מלכה סופר, יועצת השר לאלימות כלפי נשים, המשרד לביטחון פנים
רוזלי זילברמן אבלה, שופטת בית-המשפט העליון בקנדה
עו"ד רחל גרשוני, משרד המשפטים
עו"ד רחל אסיף, משרד המשפטים
ד"ר יוסף ברוך גלס, המרכז ללימודים קנדיים, האוניברסיטה העברית
יהודית היבנר, "אמונה"
שרה טפרברג, יו"ר ויצ"ו ירושלים
עו"ד עופרה פרידמן, לשכת עורכי-הדין

דנה גורדון

חבר המתרגמים בע"מ




ס ד ר ה י ו ם

(1) דיווח המשטרה על רצח האישה מיכל הלל ז"ל על-ידי בן זוגה.

(2) אישור הוועדה את הרכב חבריה לוועדה המשותפת לוועדה לקידום מעמד
האישה ולוועדת הכספים.

(3) מפגש עם השופטת רוזלי זילברמן אבלה, שופטת בית-המשפט העליון
של אונטוריו, קנדה.

אני מתכבדת לפתוח את ישיבת הוועדה לקידום
מעמד האישה.
אני רוצה לקדם בברכה את שופטת בית-המשפט העליון באונטוריו, קנדה, גברת רוזלי זילברמן אבלה.
דיווח המשטרה על רצח האישה מיכל הלל ז"ל על-ידי בן זוגה

קיבלנו אתמול למעשה החלטה לקטלג גם את
הרצח שיש ויכוח אם הוא העשירי או האחד-עשרה של נשים בידי בני זוגן במסגרת הזו, למרות שבשבת, כאשר התחילו לזרום הידיעות על זה, אני דיברתי עם מפקד המחוז ונאמר לי שהחקירה עדיין לא שלמה ומה שנראה לעין היה שזה רצח על רקע פלילי. בכל מקרה הגשתי היום לכנסת הצעה לסדר, אבל משכתי אותה כאשר הסתבר שכנראה הכיוון העיקרי איננו רצח על-ידי בן זוג, ולא החזרתי את ההצעה לסדר. בינתיים הסתברה הצלחת המשטרה – ושוב, ההצלחות האלה הן מסווגות – שתוך זמן קצר, במעקב ובנחישות, גילו את מי שלא נראה בהתחלה כאשם והוא הודה.
אני רואה חובה לעצמי בשם הוועדה לציין – אם לא בהצעה לסדר במליאה, אז בישיבת הוועדה – כל רצח כזה שקורה. מאחר שהחקירה עדיין לא הסתיימה, אני מאוד מודה למשטרה, למשרד לביטחון פנים, למחוז ירושלים שהסכימו לדווח לנו על מה שידוע עד כה.

אני אדווח בקצרה עם הסייג שאני רוצה לשים
בתחילת הדברים שהאיש רק חשוד בביצוע העבירה, למרות שהוא הודה.
הסיפור הזה מבחינתנו – ואני אדבר גם על פזה מוקדמת יותר של תלונה אחת למעשה שהייתה נגדו, ואני אפרט מה נעשה עם התלונה הזאת, התלונה הוגשה בשנת 1999. אנחנו קיבלנו הודעה על היעדרותה של מיכל הלל ז"ל ביום חמישי אחר-הצהרים. אז נעשו כל הפרוצדורות המקובלות במקרה של היעדרות כזה וביום שבת בשעות הצהרים קיבלנו הודעה על מציאת גופה אנונימית ביער אשתאול. יצאנו למקום, כאשר אני הגעתי למקום יחד עם צוות של חוקרים. בשלבים הראשונים של החקירה וכאשר חברת הכנסת יעל דיין דיברה אתי בערב, אנחנו דיברנו על ארבע כיווני חקירה עיקריים, כולם פחות או יותר בתחום הפלילי. לכן אמרתי שהכיוון העיקרי הוא פלילי. דיברנו על אפשרות אחת שהבעל מעורב, לאו דווקא האפשרות העיקרית. האפשרות השנייה הייתה שהמעורבות שלה ברצח נהג המונית - ואני לא אפרט, אני מניח שאתן מעודכנות גם מהעיתונים – לפני 15 שנה, הביאה לתוצאה של הרצח שלה על-ידי משפחתו של נהג המונית או על-ידי חבריה שהיו אתה בתיק הרצח והיא זו שגרמה לחשיפת תיק הרצח. אגב, כל שלושת המעורבים שוחררו בשלבים כאלה ואחרים של מאסרם והיא הייתה הראשונה להשתחרר. אפשרות נוספת שהייתה באותו ערב, אפשרות שהעלתה דווקא אימה של הנרצחת, כאשר היא הראתה לנו תמונה של מישהו ואמרה שיכול להיות שהוא הרוצח שהוא יהודי תמהוני. אלה היו כיווני החקירה.
כפי שאמרה יעל דיין התחלנו לרכז מאמץ. עבדנו בכל המישורים אבל התרכזנו במישור הזה והבאנו למעצרו של החשוד ביום שני, אחרי שנאספו ראיות שאני לא רוצה לפרט אותן כרגע, שמאוד ביססו את החשד לגביו. הייתי אומר כאן שהיו איזה פעולות שהן לטשטוש מעורבותו שלו ברצח והגעת המכונית שלו לזירת הרצח. אחרי חקירה שנמשכה כמה שעות הוא הודה ברצח, שיחזר אותו, וכאמור בשיחזור של הרצח הוא הוביל אותנו למקום שבו נמצאו כלי הרצח, פטיש וסכין, בתוך פח אשפה בגבעת שאול. מבחינתנו התיק הזה בשל ומוכן להעברה לפרקליטות לתביעה.
אני מזכיר את זה כאן כי זה כתוב בעיתונים. הנושא של אישתו הראשונה של האיש. לאיש הזה הייתה אישה קודמת, אם חמשת ילדיו. ממיכל הלל אין לו ילדים. הילדים הם בגילאים של בין 5 ל11-. התיק של אישתו הראשונה טופל כתיק של נעדרת. לדבריו היא נסעה לחו"ל למשפחתה בגרמניה ולפי גרסה אחת היא נפטרה שם ולפי גרסה שנייה לא יודעים היכן היא. התיק הוא תיק נעדרים ולמעשה מאז הנושא פתוח ועכשיו, לאור העניין הזה, אנחנו מחדשים את החקירה.
למעשה בשנת 1999 הייתה לנו תלונה אחת של מיכל הלל על תקיפה . התלונה הזאת, גם מבחינת מי שמסתכל בה, היא תלונה שהיא התייחסה אליה בצורה מאוד מינורית ואני לא יכול לומר כרגע אם היא פחדה או לא פחדה. היא הייתה האופוזיציה בתלונה הזאת. זאת אומרת, היא טענה שהוא זרק עליה חפצים, הצמיד אותה לקיר וחנק אותה. אנחנו לקחנו את העניין הזה בצורה הכי חריפה שאפשר ועצרנו אותו, והבאנו אותו בפני שופט. היא ביקשה לא להרחיק אותו מהבית ואנחנו דרשנו להרחיק אותו מהבית. בסוף, בשל הלחץ שלה, הוא הורחק מהבית לפרק זמן קצר. בהמשך ניהול התיק הזה, היא ביקשה לסגור את התיק ורק להזהיר אותו אבל אנחנו עמדנו על כך שהתיק הזה ילך לתביעה. התיק הזה ממתין בפרקליטות כרגע להגשת כתב אישום. אני לא יכול להגיד כרגע אם היה מוגש כתב אישום או לא, אבל זה המצב.

תרשמו לפניכם את ההתנגדות המסיבית שלי
לחוק קיצור הליכים בטענה שאין שום צורך וכי הפרקליטות פועלת תוך שעה ומשרד לביטחון פנים פועל תוך שלושים יום. הדוגמה הקיצונית היא שמגיעים לרצח לפני שמגיעים לבית-משפט. אם אנחנו צריכים הוכחות בשטח, יש לנו כאן הוכחה.

אני מסכים אתך שבמקרה הזה היה לחץ של
המשטרה יותר מאשר של הקורבן להעמיד לדין, אבל התהליכים הם תהליכים.

דיברו על כך שתיקים שוכבים בפרקליטות או
בבית-המשפט במשך שנים, אבל לגבי אלימות במשפחה המשטרה בשנתיים האחרונות עשתה דברים שלא עשתה בשום תחום אחר, כולל פשעים הרבה יותר חמורים. היום תיקים כמעט ולא שוכבים אצל חוקר ולא בתביעות. יש גם בקשות להחשת דיון, שזה פטנט חדש שהמצאנו לצורך זה כדי שהתיק יתנהל במהירות. יכול להיות שכיוונו להצעה שאתם רוצים להציע להגביל בזמן, אבל אין ספק שהיום מבחינת העמדה לדין בתיקי אלימות במשפחה, זה נמצא בעדיפות מקסימלית.

עדיין יש תיקים שעברה שנה-שנה וחצי בין
התלונה וההעמדה לדין. המשטרה היא החלק הטוב שבעניין, ולכן אני אומרת שיש כאן מערכת שלמה.

זה שהמנוחה הייתה נגד, היקשה עלינו. היא לא
רצתה בהגשת כתב אישום ולא רצתה בהוצאת צו הרחקה, אבל אנחנו אמרנו שאנחנו לא לוקחים סיכונים והוצאנו צו הרחבה והלכנו לכתב אישום.

ההמלצה שלנו להעמיד לדין היא ממאי 1999.

היא התלוננה בינואר 1999.

התביעה המתינה ממאי 1999 לתזכיר קצין מבחן.

כשהיא התלוננה, היא הודיעה שהוא תקף אותה
חצי שנה לפני כן.

גם מהעדויות לאחר הרצח, עדויות של בני
המשפחה ושל השכנים, עולה שהיא לא שידרה איזושהי מצוקה וגם לתלונה הזאת, תקיפה, אנחנו התייחסנו כמו שהתייחסנו אליה. אף אחד, מי שחקרנו אותו לאחר הרצח, לא אמר שזה היה רצח ידוע מראש. אני אומר את זה כי זה לא המקרה שבו אנחנו יכולים לומר שזה היה ברור לגמרי. לדעתי גם לה זה לא היה ברור, כי אם זה היה ברור לה, היה מאוד מוזר כל נושא הנסיעה שלה ליער. ניכר בה שהיא הופתעה.

הפחד שלה היה מאחרים והיא חששה שיתנקמו
בה.

מה הטענות שלו?

הוא טען שהיא לא טיפלה כיאות בילדיו מנישואיו
הקודמים והוא חשש שהיא תחזור הביתה עוד פעם יהיו צעקות. כנראה שהיו צעקות בבית.

הוא אמר שהילדים לא אהבו אותה.

אגב, אני מוכרח לציין כאן ובזהירות רבה, שגם
בהתנהגות שלו בחקירה ואחר-כך, יש איזושהי בעיה. אני לא פסיכיאטר, אבל ככה התרשמנו. אני לא רוצה לתת כרגע חוות דעת פסיכיאטרית, אני מניח שזה יגיע לבית-משפט ויתכן מאוד שישלחו אותו להסתכלות ונראה מה יהיה.

מבחינת הראיות שלכם יש כאן תכנון מראש.

אין ספק שהוא תיכנן. הוא גם אמר שהוא לקח
פטיש, לקח סכין, נסע אתה לשם, חיכה להזדמנות, היא ביקשה ממנו להביא טישו מהמכונית, חזר למכונית, הביא את הסכין.

מי מטפל בילדים?

הכנסנו את העובדת הסוציאלית. יש משפחה
שמטפלת בילדים והמערכת הסוציאלית מטפלת בהם מהיום שהוא נעצר.

הם היו מטופלי לשכה?

כן.

בלשכה היו אינדיקציות לאלימות?

כן. הייתה תלונה של עובדת סוציאלית נגדו שזה
לא קשור לרצח. בשנת 1996 הייתה תלונה נגדו על התנהגות כלפי הילדים, אבל זה לא קשור ליחסים שבינו לבינה והיא לא מוזכרת בתלונה הזאת.

לגבי האישה הראשונה יש לכם איזשהו דבר?

לא, שום דבר. אין לנו תלונות לגבי מערכת
היחסים ביניהם. הדבר היחידי שיש לנו זה שהוא התלונן על היעדרה של אותה אישה והוא אמר שהיא נסעה לחו"ל, ניתקה קשר וכולי. זה בחקירה ולא הייתי רוצה לפרט כרגע בעניין הזה.

אני תמיד מסיימת בתקווה שזה המקרה האחרון,
אבל לא כך קורה. תמיד בנובמבר אנחנו עושים סיכום שנה ואיכשהו בדצמבר בשנה שעברה היו שתיים-שלוש רציחות שסיימו לנו את השנה במאזן שונה. אני מקווה שלגבי השנה הזו זה סיום מאזן דמים.
אני מודה לכם על ההיענות לבוא לכאן.
אישור הוועדה את הרכב חבריה לוועדה המשותפת
לוועדה לקידום מעמד האישה ולוועדת הכספים.

אנחנו צריכים לאשר הרכב שתי ועדות: ועדה
משותפת לוועדת הכספים ולוועדה לקידום מעמד האישה שזו ועדה אד-הוק לקראת הדיונים בתקציב.
מטעם הוועדה למעמד האישה – ואני מבקשת לאשר את זה – חברים בוועדה המשותפת יעל דיין, דליה רבין פילוסוף, אליעזר כהן, קולט אביטל וציפי לבני.
מי בעד? מי נגד? אושר פה אחד.
אתמול במליאה הודיעו על ועדה משותפת נוספת לוועדת העבודה והרווחה ולוועדה לקידום מעמד האישה בנושא בריאות נשים. הוועדה הוקמה בהתנגדות חריפה מאוד של דוד טל יושב-ראש ועדת העבודה והרווחה. ועדת הכנסת נתנה לזה אורכה וקיימה דיונים אבל הוא נשאר בהתנגדותו. לפיכך הוא גם לא סיפק את השמות של החברים בוועדה זו מטעם ועדת העבודה והרווחה. אנחנו ביקשנו לאפשר לוועדה המשותפת הזו לפעול וועדת הכנסת אישרה זאת. חברת הכנסת דליה רבין פילוסוף תעמוד בראש הוועדה המשותפת. הוועדה תתחיל לפעול מיד תחת הכותרת של ועדה משותפת עם ועדת העבודה והרווחה. אם הוועדה תעמוד על החרם – וזה אמור לגבי יושב-ראש הוועדה כי אני לא חושבת שחברי הוועדה יודעים על כך – הוא לא ישלח חברים. אני רוצה לציין שלכל ישיבות ועדות משנה וועדות משותפות, אנחנו מזמינים באורח קבוע את כל חברות הכנסת. זאת זכות יושב-ראש הוועדה, כל יושב-ראש ועדה, להזמין איזה חברי כנסת שהוא רוצה ובוודאי בנושא הזה של חברות הכנסת, אני דורשת שהן יהיו. במקום שאי-אפשר, זה עניין הצבעות כאשר יש הצבעה, כולל בוועדה הזאת, ואז כמובן אני צריכה להקריא שמות ולבדוק שרק חברי הוועדה או ממלאי מקומם יהיו נוכחים. אני חושבת שכל חברות הכנסת שאינן יכולות להיות חברות בפועל בכל הוועדות תהיינה מוזמנות לפי עניין שיש להן בנושא.
אני רוצה לבקש אישור להוציא הודעה בשם הוועדה. הוקם מה שנקרא פרלמנט נשים בניהול אסתר הרצוג. אני נשאלתי על זה ואמרתי שאני מברכת על כל גוף שמוקם. בלי להתחשב בהודעה שלהן שאנחנו לא עושות די ולכן הן יהיו מעין ממשלת צללים של נשים. אני הייתי רוצה להוציא להן הודעת ברכה מטעם הוועדה ולומר שאנחנו מברכים על הקמת כל גוף שמקדם את מעמד האישה וגם להזמין אותן להשתתף אתנו בישיבות.

הייתי רוצה לשאול שאלה. בישיבה הקודמת
ישבנו בוועדת הכספים. ישנה מצוקה תקציבית, וגם אם התקציבים שאותם דרשנו יאושרו במסגרת תוספת זו או אחרת, גם אז זה לא יכסה פרוייקטים עליהם אנחנו מדברים. גוף או רשות ממשלתית, כמו הרשות למעמד האישה, האם ניתן להביא מצ'ינג. בשבוע הבא הוזמנתי לארצות-הברית להרצות על הנושא הזה בפני הקרן החדשה לישראל ואכן יש ארגונים שמוכנים לאסוף כספים. השאלה היא האם זה יכול לעזור אם אנחנו נפנה שיקדישו השנה מאמצים מיוחדים לאיסוף כספים למטרות הספציפיות האלה שמכוונות לפרוייקטים שגובשו.

אני מציעה שלא נדון בזה עכשיו. בעקרון אני
מתנגדת לעשות הנחות לאיזושהי ממשלה כי אלה דברים שצריכים להיות מתוקצבים על-ידי הממשלה.

אני מדברת על מצ'ינג ולא על הנחה.

למשל בפרוייקט לחצני מצוקה, ויצ"ו מממנת
בחצי מהסכום ומשרד העבודה בחצי השני. כל המקלטים למעשה הם פרטיים, להוציא את המקלט הערבי. נעמ"ת מקימה מקלט, אמונה מקימה מקלט, בת מלך מקימה מקלט לחרדיות והם מקבלים אחר-כך את התפעול מהממשלה והם מקבלים תקציב שלא מכסה את כל ההקמה. אלה דברים ספציפיים שבדרך כלל ארגונים עושים. הייתי מאוד נזהרת מלתת הנחות לממשלה על דברים שמופיעים בתקציב העבודה והרווחה, גם כמצ'ינג.

המרכזים לסיוע בתקיפה מינית לא היו חיים בלי
התמיכה שהם מקבלים. אם מתחילים לעשות על-בסיס של מצ'ינג הם יתנו למטרות שהם נותנים היום.

יש מחסור גדול במקומות לנערות במצוקה. יש
תור המתנה לצופיה ולמקומות אחרים ומדובר בכ300- בנות שהן ממש ברחוב וכאן מדובר על מתן פתרון עבורן או שנותנים להם להידרדר לסמים וזנות כשיש שם הרבה רציחות והתאבדויות. אפשר לקחת פרוייקט כזה, וזה פרוייקט רב-שנתי, ולעסוק רק בדבר אחד ואז לרכז. זה דבר שלא נמצא בתקציב השוטף. בוועדה המשותפת אנחנו עוסקים בתקציב השוטף.
מפגש עם השופטת רוזאלי זילברמן אבלה, שופטת בית-המשפט
העליון של אונטוריו, קנדה

I would like to re-welcome you and thank you. We don’t have a lot of time together, because the plenum begins at 11.00 and I have got another meeting at 10.00 and it is International AIDS Day. So what we would like to do in the short time we have together is very briefly to report or tell you about what we are doing and hear from you about your work and your directions. If there is anything to enlighten us or inform us or add to our very poor knowledge on legislation on women’s rights, we would be delighted. We will talk less about the dire social needs and more about what is being done in this house.
Starting with establishing this committee about eight years ago. Of the members present Naomi Chazan and myself who were then not only in the Knesset first timers but were the government. We were younger and the government was ours and we presented the proposal to establish this committee for the advancement of women’s rights. It was accepted, later it became a statutory regular house committee, which it is now for about six years. We are very proud of ourselves, we can certainly show the empty half of every glass, we are very proud of our achievements, not only in this house by legislation, but mostly by really advancing the public consciousness, knowledge, opinion, the media awareness of what we mean when we say the status of women, for better or for worse.
There are many things that are still huge problems, mostly in the workplace. I would say the number one problem is still the gap in wages, which is about 30 to 40 percent in the public service, which is enormous. Second to it on this level is representation. We are now the highest number ever, that is 15 members of Knesset out of 120. The last Knesset we were only 9, the one before 12. So there was a big drop in the last Knesset and a very big rise in the present one. I don’t know if it indicates the maximum or really a line that will continue to rise, we have four years to work on it.
Part of our action is to do not with our own positions, of course; for instance, we have municipal elections almost two years ago. For the first time women were elected in Israel to rather major, anyway not minor places, before there was one and now we are two, one of a very minor local authority and now there are two important cities, which have for the first time been elected.
This is part of our work, which I divide into two major categories, one is the advancement of women and the other is protection of women. And these two things, unfortunately, the protection of women, of women’s rights, of anti discrimination bills and work and answering the personal appeals to us. Sexual harassment, a big act of this committee, started advance and completed, and violence, the fight against violence against women, which unfortunately is on the rise in a big way, for a variety of reasons.
Books were written about it and we can offer legislation, which we are offering, but mostly really putting it in the center stage, the thing of terror against women in our eyes are not less than terror in the political security sense. Then it is unfunctionable because we are giving it headlines, the media is very aware of it; the Knesset is aware of it, there are big discussions. It is not passing without notice ever, but budget-wise we are still behind. We are working on mostly a higher budgets, for the purpose of combating violence and we find difficulties there.
We have a whole system, which can offer assistance if it is well manned and well budgeted. Usually December is a month devoted to the budget questions and I hope that this time we will manage to have the entire body of fifteen women, plus the men on my committee to create some kind of block, which will be able to push forward budgets on violence and health for women, which is also lacking.
We deal with women and sport, we deal with women and personal law. There is a big problem of state and religion; I won’t go into it. Whatever has to do with women, as I said, protection of women, advancement of women, football and soccer for women, you name it we are there. As an additional line we are also formed from the beginning a sub committee for, of course, we handle Arab women, Druze women, new immigrant community, Ethiopian community etc.
We established from the beginning a sub committee for gay rights, gay and lesbian rights, which was lacking in this house. It is a sort of bypass because it is not a natural thing to attach to, but it is done all over the world, feminism and the gay rights, the fight for gay rights go together and it is working very well. We can not only given legitimacy, but given legitimacy in the eyes of those who rejected and it is an ongoing battle, which I can say is a success story absolutely in the Knesset, outside the Knesset, on a municipal level and so on and in legislation. So we take pride in this.
We would like you to tell us about your own work.

I am so happy to be here, first of all, because I did not know about the work of this committee. I knew that there was a very strong feminist presence in Israel but that you have it in Parliament is extraordinary. We don’t have that in Canada, we did have and the fact that there is now a time voice every time women’s issues are raised, support from women in the Knesset, makes all the difference in the world. We have reached the stage in Canada, having gone through the 70s and 80s with much support for women’s issues, where people are tired of it; they don’t want to hear about it. Our women’s organizations are not strong and we don’t have an effective woman in Parliament force, although we have some very good women in Parliament. So what you do here by keeping women’s issues on the political agenda is extremely important. I am happy to learn about what you are doing, it is good to hear how similar the issues are, it is incredible here, the other side of the world and all the other issues you are talking about are issues we are facing in Canada.
We have attempted solutions in a whole number of areas and I can tell you what they are. Joseph told me you wanted them on one age, the key issues, because he sent you this long boring CV, which embarrasses me. So the challenge was to put the major events dealing with women on one page, which I had done.
What it is, it started in 1970, this generation with the World Commission on the Status of Women and what that did was put on the table all of the women’s issues. It was as if the whole country had been sound asleep on this, but the 60s woke everybody up about everything. So we were commissioned after three year and reported and all of the issues were raised, a plan on childcare, violence, and it became a menu from which the government could pick and what they picked was very little, but it got the discussion going.
Then we had, like here, very much of our progress comes from our courts. The reason it comes from courts is because legislatures respond to majority concerns. The majorities are very nervous about changing the status quo as a rule and courts have the freedom of independence in the tenure to respond to minority issues. So, in Canada a good part of what has happened for women has come from the courts. All what has happened for gays and lesbians has come from the courts, all.
The issue of sexual orientation arose first in 1977. I was on the Anterior Human Rights Commission and we wrote a report called “Life Together,” which recommended that protection on discrimination, against discrimination to include sexual orientation in 1977. The result was most of the members of the commission were not renewed because it was a very controversial recommendation at the time. But people started to think about the issue. For years people recommended that they include sexual orientation into the grounds that prevent discrimination.
The government would not act because like abortion, which also was resolved in our courts. It was something the Parliament was afraid to go back to the electorate with, that are directly accountable, we are not. The consequence of our making a controversial decision is a bad editorial and you still have your job the next day. So the courts play a very important role.
In 1992 my court, another judge on my court wrote a decision that said it was against our charter of rights and freedoms, not to have protection against sexual reorientation in the human rights. Therefore, he read in sexual orientation into the human rights court of Canada. I wrote a decision declaring unconstitutional the anti sodomy laws and the criminal code, which created as you can imagine some reaction, including from my mother and then I wrote a judgment on our court declaring adinium, sexual opposite sex for pension benefits under the human deaths act and then the Supreme Court of Canada this year decided that spousal relationships include the same sexual benefits, all from the courts.
Women’s issues came from the court in this way. In 1973 we had a case called Murdock. We did not have the right to divorce in Canada until 1968, except by parliamentary means, so it was very rare to get a divorce. So until 1968 most people did not know what family law was all about, because most people never experienced it. People stayed together, whether they wanted to be married or not, because they really had very little choice. So once we got divorced, people started coming into contact with support laws, custody laws and matrimonial property laws. Suddenly the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision that outraged the whole country and it was a decision that said, even though a white worker on a farm with her husband doing all the work that he did, all the efforts that he did, running the firm, he is a busy person. Anyway, the court imposed the law, the corporate law, which had been in existence for 100 years, but nobody knew and that is, if you make a financial contribution to buying the property you get that contribution back, but if you don’t make a financial direct contribution, you don’t get it back. So in most marriages at the time, the husband was the breadwinner, the wife had very little money, so when the property was divided she got nothing. So people said, “You are kidding, is that what our family law is?” There was such a movement; it created the women’s movement in Canada in 1970, from that one court case in 1973.
So agitation from women in Parliament, there weren’t women lawyers then, but women and men agitated to change the family law and the matrimonial law of property law and then all the governments changed the matrimonial property law so that it was equal support obligations, marriage and partnership are equal. But it all started with the courts.
Now the workplace situation is very different. We have a solution to problems in Canada, which you may or may not have here. If there is a problem of political agitation and the government does not want to do anything, they set up a broad commission. So there were many people in Canada who wanted affirmative action, and the government was nervous about affirmative action because business does not like affirmative action. Apparently what happened was every year the government would go businesses and say, “Is this a good year for affirmative action?” and business would say, “Not yet, do you mind coming back next year.” Then they would go back next and say, “Is this a good year for affirmative action?” Finally we set up a world commission and I was the world commission, one person, to look at what various to equality existed for either women, non-whites. Aboriginal people and disabled people.
After one year I said affirmative action, as a main is too controversial, because people argue what does it mean instead of getting on with the question. So, a concept called Employment Equity, in a lawyer’s note that words mean a lot. So, as a result of the world commission they recommended that there be something called the employment equity, which is form of affirmative action but without quotas, because I was nervous about the American experience, which was very bureaucratic. Business did not like the way they had to do, you know business resents any kind of interference. I did not want to create anything but was going to be so resisted that it was not going to work.
So, it was a much looser kind of obligation on the part of every organization in Canada. It was regulated by the Federal Government to create a snapshot of its workforce by the support groups to find out which occupational layer they were in because a lot to them had a lot of women, but they were all at the bottom of the organization and to show how they were paid. It was amazing because the companies who did that found what we knew they would find. They were paying the women less; there was a glass ceiling beyond which women did not go. They hired, they were very happy to hire women that in a certain executive level the women never got the positions. So they implemented something called Employment Equity, which I think has had, I think some effect.
Where we are the women in Canada now is we have satisfied the numbers. There are many women in law school, there are many women in medical school, there are for most women very little change. I would say 90% of the female population in Canada is they look at what people like me and how the press gets all fixated on women with credentials, who were high profile. But they are still paid less, they are still have no childcare, they experience violence. They are now told they have to pay jobs and they have pay jobs because otherwise there is a poverty line, they are far below the poverty line. They have to work, it is not that they think it is a great luxury, they have no choice.

Are their difference, I mean is it the same across the line? The same in French?

The French have more numbers before we had numbers, but you still find no women presidents in the universities in Quebec. We have now about a half a dozen in Canada. But the women in them senior levels, we cannot break through that level and we cannot get through the pay equity level, because the government and business always say we cannot afford it. The trouble as you know with these issues is, people deal with ledgers, budgets. So, the cost of equality and fighting discrimination is very clear. You can show how much it will cost to pay women fairly or to hire more women. You cannot show the cost of dignity. You cannot show the cost of giving people a good sense of being able to earn the money to contribute back.
So, in a cost benefit analysis of public policy, it always looks like it is more expensive to do things for women, because you can never show how the benefit on the other sides works, it is not measurable. It is measurable in a generation; it is measurable over time.
So in this symphony of things that are going on, a number of court cases made an enormous difference. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provision of the criminal code. We had the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1981. We now have three of them. The Supreme Court upheld affirmative action in a case because you can appreciate there was a challenge to whether or not it was appropriate, they called it the reverse discrimination. This is what people said, “The merit system is at risk.” You have reverse discrimination and we always argue that if we had a merit system there would be more women in positions of the authority. We have not had one up until now. It is not reverse discrimination, it is reversing discrimination.
Really what they are nervous about is the competition is changing and they thought if they were going to have exclusive entitlement, and now we are saying, “We don’t want a slice of the pie, the whole pie, we should have the same chance to the whole pie, that you have had all along.”
The most important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, I think, is the 1988 decision, which interpreted the equality, the provision of the constitution. The reason I say this is the most important provision is because it interpreted a quality as a substantive equality, not formal equality, not treating everybody the same, which means that if you are in a wheelchair, you have the same right to work, but they don’t have to build a ramp So they said equality means the right to be free from discrimination, the right to have the difference.
Because they created an equality right, you know they just took the word equality and they gave it substance. They said it is not what Aristotle 2000 years or when Aristotle was about. It is about understanding that different groups have different needs and you have to create equality, accommodate what those differences are, otherwise you have no equality.
Now, the result of all of that in the 70s and the 80s has resulted in the complete backlash in Canada. So we are here in the 90s, we read about violence, worried about many things, but most people in our country now say, “What is the problem? Look how many women are in law schools, we have three women are on the Supreme Court of Canada . Women are now elected to government.”
I am on the Court of Appeal in the largest province, we have 21 judges and a province that has about 500 judges. So it is the last resort court. We have 4 women that is it. There is no reason, there are 500 judges in Ontario, 21 on my court because it is the last court. So, we have made enormous progress, we are now kind of having to make our way again and explain to people that the job is not finished, just because we have achieved certain obvious victories.
I don’t know how we get to the next stage, because we no longer have a strong women’s movement. The press in our country tends to be very conservative, so these issues are not supported by the media, which means eventually they are not supported by the public. We are told by the union that there is no problem and that feminists are very dangerous, they are biased and they don’t want people to believe in feminism anywhere near the justice system, especially in the courts.
So, in one generation we have gone through enormous improvements, enormous change and we are now a glacier again. We have to figure out some way to kind of kick start the issue, because we are creating again, especially in the justice role, which is what women’s rights are about, human rights are about, a sense that it is not a good idea to promote rights for women and once you have sent that message then people develop careers accordingly. You know it can be an antidote to courage if everybody around you is saying, “It is not a good thing to be the morning after.”
The violence issue, I was on the family court for six years and I remember when this became suddenly a very important issue, and the tactic that they took was that the family court would have one had a week for domestic violence issues. The trouble was they thought of it as a family problem instead of a criminal problem. So, it was all about keeping families together, which was bizarre, because why did you come together something that was clearly so dysfunctional?
So eventually they moved it to the criminal courts, dealt with it as a crime and not as a family issue and if the police said even if the wife was not going to pursue it, we are going to pursue it. The crown took responsibility for the case, because many women were terrified even though they were beaten, that this was their only economic support, they did not know what to do about the children and their fear caused them often to say, “Never mind, we will do it another day.” So the state took over and the crown started prosecuting and saying, “Whether you want to do this or not, this is not just about a family, this is an issue of violence which affects everybody in society, we are going to prosecute it.
So we prosecute these things, we educate the judiciary, that these are important things which should be sentenced severely. It is not just a slap on the wrist, and read a hundred times I won’t beat my wife anymore. Once the sentences went up, it inspired a lot of people to think twice, but on the other hand, I assure you it is very much still a problem in Canada and we don’t know what to do about those people who in the heat of the moment commit these acts of violence they are not thinking, “Oh goodness, I am going to get a big sentence from the court.”
We have such an endemic problem with sexism that it is really built into the way men feel about women. It is built into the whole history of family relationships that was the man is the boss and the woman is the one who looks after the family and washed chattel. So until we recover from that tradition that saw women as an insignificant part of society because it is started off as women being an insignificant part of the family, and that is the basic social unit. So men felt they could do whatever they wanted at home with the wife, with child abuse is another problem.
So we have many similar issues, the most similar issue coming to Israel in the last few days is reading the papers here, is the attack on the courts. Let me end on this because as a judge I know what goes on inside and I know how it feels inside. If in a democracy there isn’t a protection for the independence of a court. If it becomes a continuous attack, not on the decision because you can disagree with a decision, but on the legitimacy of the institution, you are left with a society that cannot independently protect rights, because all you are left with is the State and the State responds to interests that are not necessarily good for women or minorities.
So, what I don’t hear, although I am sure it is here are people speaking out and saying, “It may not be perfect, but it is a very important social institution in a democracy and it needs to be protected.” Make the reforms that are necessary. But you have, I have to tell you, one of the most admired judiciaries in the world, the courage of your judges here, in the face of what they have to deal with all the time is something we talk about in Canada a lot in the judiciary.
We have some criticism, but nothing like the relentlessness of the attack here and to see this incredible judiciary where in a very short time dealt with some difficult questions, tried to reconcile interests, some of which you will never reconcile, and then it was such bravery to have people say, “You have gone too far on behalf of justice,” is bizarre to me.

I must say we also appreciate the bravery, but they do enjoy the huge support of the people. We have some guests here, it is something that I don’t usually do, and it is on a personal level, the wives of foreign journalist who are stationed in Israel? I am a good feminist but there are moments when I say yes without feeling too bad about it, but usually I don’t give a status to the wives. So we will continue for a few minutes, and then we will answer their questions.
There are three Knesset members, please sit down, you can sit around the table. Everybody speaks English. I understand that we are welcoming the spouses of journalists of the foreign press, we felt that the spouses of the foreign journalists should get to know us.

This is the beginning of a program of trips they are doing. We have a wide representation here of the Jewish Chronicle, Newsweek, Japanese Press, Independent, Daily Telegraph, etc.

We are towards the end of the meeting, actually to a second meeting of the day, and we are going to go. We are hosting Judge Abella from Ontario and we are at the end of Ms. Abella’s very thorough and interesting description of things, the way they are in Canada, having heard what we have to say about ourselves. Of course, there are differences between the legislative body, which is the Knesset and the judiciary body, which is the court of appeals. We will give time for questions of members of the Knesset here to the judge and then we will have, not too long, but we will continue with our meetings.
I want to introduce to Knesset member Naomi Chazan from Meretz, Member of Knesset Corlette Avital from One Israel. A member of Knesset member Eliezer Cohen and other members of the status quo committee.

I have some questions. Essentially you suggested that the revolution was led by the courts. I assume it was led by the course because you have a charter which allows you to lead it, without a constitutional base you would be in trouble. But my much more difficult question is what has changed today because that basis still exists that the activities are much produced in Israel. I was about to say something nasty, but I won’t.
Eventually you said you have reached a side step but nothing essentially has changed. The tools you have are the same, the difficulties you confront are at least well defined. But the activism of the courts is now what it was, as you described in the 70s and the 80s. So what has changed? You did not have parliamentary assistance before, you really did not have public assistance before, and it was an act rather than a precondition for the kinds of work of the court. So, I don’t understand how you explain the process that appears to exist. That is the first question.
Then obviously I have a follow up.

Let me deal with the first question first. When I say the activism of the courts made a difference, it was in a way a function of a relationship between the courts and the Parliament. The Parliament enacted the charter but before we had the charter the court was dealing with issues of family property law and the court empowerment operate, they have a relationship with one another. Sometimes the court is ahead, sometimes Parliament is ahead, it depends on the times.
The standstill we are in now is still a standstill which is a very different picture from 20 years ago. So if you are going to have a standstill now as opposed to 1972 when all of this started we have many more women participating in the labor force, the majority of mothers are in the labor force, in the paid labor force they have worked in before and many more women going to school and getting secondary education,
We have had enormous changes, but there is a public reaction to how much has changed. We did not have very much divorce. Suddenly there is a lot of activity in the family area. We did not have rates for gays, suddenly there are rates for people they did not think before were really part of the mainstream. We did not have rates for Aboriginal people, suddenly Aboriginal people are laying claim to whole parts of the land and the country and people, you know it is expensive to put it ramps and to accommodate people with disabilities.
So, the revolution before it entered parliament and before it entered the court was in the public. In the 60s where everybody was saying, “How come this is the way things are?” So, in a way the courts are responsive, and in a way Parliament is responsive, but we could not do it in the courts without some legislative backdrop and in a way Parliament needs us to help them do some of the things they want to do but don’t have majority support to do.
So, we can say in the courts, “This is a question of law, which has come to us and it may seem political, but it is a question where we feel we have the independence to deal with.” Parliament will then say, “You see we have to win back the law, the courts have said that we have to do it.”
But it wasn’t the charter of rights and freedoms, it was a whole feeling in the 70s, before we had a charter of rights and freedoms, it was a whole feeling in the 70s before we had a charter for rights and freedoms, that what was happening to women was wrong. Because of that feeling in the 60s and 70s we got the charter rights and freedoms. So it was the public feeling first and then the charter and then the court became muscular. There are transitions and sometimes I think the court sometimes the court is the hero and sometimes the court is the villain in history and sometimes Parliament is extraordinarily brave and sometimes Parliament feels it wants to take a rest., but the history of rights is this relationship between the two bodies and it is a kind of partnership.

I think my first question has been answered, I was not too clear on the relationship between Parliament and the courts, the courts creating certain precedence and Parliament taking up and legislating.
The other question I have is, other than this action which is legal, has the government invested in the past 20 years money into the educational system to change attitudes?

We have that if you wait for attitudes to change it takes forever. If you change behavior through law the attitudes will follow. So the government has invested in legal changes,, which have in fact changed attitudes. Because although education is very important, education takes time. The best education is to have the experience seeing that your stereotype is wrong. So if you think, I remember the first time I hired a secretary in 1972 when I started practicing law, he told me that her father said, “How could you work for a woman?” It never occurred to him that a woman could be a boss.
So, if you create the legal requirement not to discriminate, the attitudes will have to follow whether they want to or not and eventually you create a new set of what is normal. We have done that. We have created a new set of norms, but we have also exhausted people and confused people and people have said, “It is too much too fast, we want a break.” They don’t say that specifically, but I think that is what the backlash is. People just saying, “Can we take a little breather here.”
Now, I don’t think the courts have done that, because we don’t have to worry about breathers. The only thing Parliament has said, “We have to sense that the people are a little nervous about what has been going on and we just want to take a period now and decide what we do next.” In the meantime in the courts there are pay equity, huge pay equity bills the government has to pay, because the government passed a law that there should be pay equity. Is billions of dollars that they owe to women in the service, they appealed it, but they have to pay it, and it was their law which the courts enforced.
So there is still movement, but there is no new legislation really coming along, which transforms social relationships, because I think they are willing to see how things settle down. This generation was the transition generation, it all changed in this generation.
YAEL DAYAN. I thank you very much. I think as we don’t have time to indulge in similarities and differences, so while you were speaking, we were sort of nodding and saying to ourselves, “The same here.” For better of for worse we are yet to experience a backlash. We are n to yet where you were before it started, so we will make a little progress and then we will expect perhaps we can learn from other places like Canada and prepare for it that way, because everybody knows it is coming and there are already movements against families and the way they determine it and the way they call it. We have had women saying we are the feminist movement that is deterring people from women’s rights etc. So, we are learning the hard way, we are very stubborn, we are setting norms by how slowly we are going to change it. We are setting our goals higher and we are legislating higher and then we are pushing from under in order to reach the norms that you have set.
On the whole I think we are going in the right direction. I am very grateful for your time. Thank you once again.