הוועדה לקידום מעמד האישה, כנסת 15, פרוטוקול מספר 21, 1999-12-01 09:00

יעל דיין: אני רוצה לקדם בברכה את שופטת בית-המשפט העליון באונטוריו, קנדה, גברת רוזלי זילברמן אבלה.

יעל דיין: אני רואה חובה לעצמי בשם הוועדה לציין – אם לא בהצעה לסדר במליאה, אז בישיבת הוועדה – כל רצח כזה שקורה.

יעל דיין: מאחר שהחקירה עדיין לא הסתיימה, אני מאוד מודה למשטרה, למשרד לביטחון פנים, למחוז ירושלים שהסכימו לדווח לנו על מה שידוע עד כה.

יאיר יצחקי: 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.

יאיר יצחקי: אנחנו קיבלנו הודעה על היעדרותה של מיכל הלל ז"ל ביום חמישי אחר-הצהרים.

יאיר יצחקי: אז נעשו כל הפרוצדורות המקובלות במקרה של היעדרות כזה וביום שבת בשעות הצהרים קיבלנו הודעה על מציאת גופה אנונימית ביער אשתאול.

יאיר יצחקי: יצאנו למקום, כאשר אני הגעתי למקום יחד עם צוות של חוקרים.

יאיר יצחקי: 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.

יאיר יצחקי: לכן אמרתי שהכיוון העיקרי הוא פלילי.

יאיר יצחקי: דיברנו על אפשרות אחת שהבעל מעורב, לאו דווקא האפשרות העיקרית.

יאיר יצחקי: 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.

יאיר יצחקי: אגב, כל שלושת המעורבים שוחררו בשלבים כאלה ואחרים של מאסרם והיא הייתה הראשונה להשתחרר.

יאיר יצחקי: 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.

יאיר יצחקי: אלה היו כיווני החקירה.

יאיר יצחקי: כפי שאמרה יעל דיין התחלנו לרכז מאמץ.

יאיר יצחקי: 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.

יאיר יצחקי: הייתי אומר כאן שהיו איזה פעולות שהן לטשטוש מעורבותו שלו ברצח והגעת המכונית שלו לזירת הרצח.

יאיר יצחקי: 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.

יאיר יצחקי: מבחינתנו התיק הזה בשל ומוכן להעברה לפרקליטות לתביעה.

יאיר יצחקי: אני מזכיר את זה כאן כי זה כתוב בעיתונים.

יאיר יצחקי: הנושא של אישתו הראשונה של האיש.

יאיר יצחקי: לאיש הזה הייתה אישה קודמת, אם חמשת ילדיו.

יאיר יצחקי: ממיכל הלל אין לו ילדים.

יאיר יצחקי: הילדים הם בגילאים של בין 5 ל11-.

יאיר יצחקי: התיק של אישתו הראשונה טופל כתיק של נעדרת.

יאיר יצחקי: לדבריו היא נסעה לחו"ל למשפחתה בגרמניה ולפי גרסה אחת היא נפטרה שם ולפי גרסה שנייה לא יודעים היכן היא.

יאיר יצחקי: התיק הוא תיק נעדרים ולמעשה מאז הנושא פתוח ועכשיו, לאור העניין הזה, אנחנו מחדשים את החקירה.

יאיר יצחקי: למעשה בשנת 1999 הייתה לנו תלונה אחת של מיכל הלל על תקיפה .

יאיר יצחקי: 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.

יאיר יצחקי: היא הייתה האופוזיציה בתלונה הזאת.

יאיר יצחקי: זאת אומרת, היא טענה שהוא זרק עליה חפצים, הצמיד אותה לקיר וחנק אותה.

יאיר יצחקי: אנחנו לקחנו את העניין הזה בצורה הכי חריפה שאפשר ועצרנו אותו, והבאנו אותו בפני שופט.

יאיר יצחקי: היא ביקשה לא להרחיק אותו מהבית ואנחנו דרשנו להרחיק אותו מהבית.

יאיר יצחקי: בסוף, בשל הלחץ שלה, הוא הורחק מהבית לפרק זמן קצר.

יאיר יצחקי: בהמשך ניהול התיק הזה, היא ביקשה לסגור את התיק ורק להזהיר אותו אבל אנחנו עמדנו על כך שהתיק הזה ילך לתביעה.

יאיר יצחקי: התיק הזה ממתין בפרקליטות כרגע להגשת כתב אישום.

יאיר יצחקי: אני לא יכול להגיד כרגע אם היה מוגש כתב אישום או לא, אבל זה המצב.

יעל דיין: אני מודה לכם על ההיענות לבוא לכאן.

יעל דיין: לוועדה לקידום מעמד האישה ולוועדת הכספים.

יעל דיין: מטעם הוועדה למעמד האישה – ואני מבקשת לאשר את זה – חברים בוועדה המשותפת יעל דיין, דליה רבין פילוסוף, אליעזר כהן, קולט אביטל וציפי לבני.

יעל דיין: מי בעד?

יעל דיין: מי נגד?

יעל דיין: אושר פה אחד.

יעל דיין: אתמול במליאה הודיעו על ועדה משותפת נוספת לוועדת העבודה והרווחה ולוועדה לקידום מעמד האישה בנושא בריאות נשים.

יעל דיין: הוועדה הוקמה בהתנגדות חריפה מאוד של דוד טל יושב-ראש ועדת העבודה והרווחה.

יעל דיין: ועדת הכנסת נתנה לזה אורכה וקיימה דיונים אבל הוא נשאר בהתנגדותו.

יעל דיין: לפיכך הוא גם לא סיפק את השמות של החברים בוועדה זו מטעם ועדת העבודה והרווחה.

יעל דיין: אנחנו ביקשנו לאפשר לוועדה המשותפת הזו לפעול וועדת הכנסת אישרה זאת.

יעל דיין: חברת הכנסת דליה רבין פילוסוף תעמוד בראש הוועדה המשותפת.

יעל דיין: הוועדה תתחיל לפעול מיד תחת הכותרת של ועדה משותפת עם ועדת העבודה והרווחה.

יעל דיין: אם הוועדה תעמוד על החרם – וזה אמור לגבי יושב-ראש הוועדה כי אני לא חושבת שחברי הוועדה יודעים על כך – הוא לא ישלח חברים.

יעל דיין: אני רוצה לציין שלכל ישיבות ועדות משנה וועדות משותפות, אנחנו מזמינים באורח קבוע את כל חברות הכנסת.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: אני חושבת שכל חברות הכנסת שאינן יכולות להיות חברות בפועל בכל הוועדות תהיינה מוזמנות לפי עניין שיש להן בנושא.

יעל דיין: אני רוצה לבקש אישור להוציא הודעה בשם הוועדה.

יעל דיין: הוקם מה שנקרא פרלמנט נשים בניהול אסתר הרצוג.

יעל דיין: אני נשאלתי על זה ואמרתי שאני מברכת על כל גוף שמוקם.

יעל דיין: בלי להתחשב בהודעה שלהן שאנחנו לא עושות די ולכן הן יהיו מעין ממשלת צללים של נשים.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: מפגש עם השופטת רוזאלי זילברמן אבלה, שופטת בית-המשפט העליון של אונטוריו, קנדה

יעל דיין: Starting with establishing this committee about eight years ago.

יעל דיין: Of the members present Naomi Chazan and myself who were then not only in the Knesset first timers but were the government.

יעל דיין: We were younger and the government was ours and we presented the proposal to establish this committee for the advancement of women’s rights.

יעל דיין: It was accepted, later it became a statutory regular house committee, which it is now for about six years.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: There are many things that are still huge problems, mostly in the workplace.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: Second to it on this level is representation.

יעל דיין: We are now the highest number ever, that is 15 members of Knesset out of 120.

יעל דיין: The last Knesset we were only 9, the one before 12.

יעל דיין: So there was a big drop in the last Knesset and a very big rise in the present one.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: Part of our action is to do not with our own positions, of course; for instance, we have municipal elections almost two years ago.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: It is not passing without notice ever, but budget-wise we are still behind.

יעל דיין: We are working on mostly a higher budgets, for the purpose of combating violence and we find difficulties there.

יעל דיין: We deal with women and sport, we deal with women and personal law.

יעל דיין: There is a big problem of state and religion; I won’t go into it.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: We established from the beginning a sub committee for gay rights, gay and lesbian rights, which was lacking in this house.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: 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.

יעל דיין: So we take pride in this.

יעל דיין: We would like you to tell us about your own work.

ROSIE ABELLA: We have attempted solutions in a whole number of areas and I can tell you what they are.

ROSIE ABELLA: Joseph told me you wanted them on one age, the key issues, because he sent you this long boring CV, which embarrasses me.

ROSIE ABELLA: So the challenge was to put the major events dealing with women on one page, which I had done.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: It was as if the whole country had been sound asleep on this, but the 60s woke everybody up about everything.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Then we had, like here, very much of our progress comes from our courts.

ROSIE ABELLA: The reason it comes from courts is because legislatures respond to majority concerns.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: So, in Canada a good part of what has happened for women has come from the courts.

ROSIE ABELLA: All what has happened for gays and lesbians has come from the courts, all.

ROSIE ABELLA: The issue of sexual orientation arose first in 1977.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: The result was most of the members of the commission were not renewed because it was a very controversial recommendation at the time.

ROSIE ABELLA: But people started to think about the issue.

ROSIE ABELLA: For years people recommended that they include sexual orientation into the grounds that prevent discrimination.

ROSIE ABELLA: The government would not act because like abortion, which also was resolved in our courts.

ROSIE ABELLA: It was something the Parliament was afraid to go back to the electorate with, that are directly accountable, we are not.

ROSIE ABELLA: The consequence of our making a controversial decision is a bad editorial and you still have your job the next day.

ROSIE ABELLA: So the courts play a very important role.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Therefore, he read in sexual orientation into the human rights court of Canada.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Women’s issues came from the court in this way.

ROSIE ABELLA: In 1973 we had a case called Murdock.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: So until 1968 most people did not know what family law was all about, because most people never experienced it.

ROSIE ABELLA: People stayed together, whether they wanted to be married or not, because they really had very little choice.

ROSIE ABELLA: So once we got divorced, people started coming into contact with support laws, custody laws and matrimonial property laws.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: But it all started with the courts.

ROSIE ABELLA: Now the workplace situation is very different.

ROSIE ABELLA: We have a solution to problems in Canada, which you may or may not have here.

ROSIE ABELLA: If there is a problem of political agitation and the government does not want to do anything, they set up a broad commission.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Aboriginal people and disabled people.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: So, a concept called Employment Equity, in a lawyer’s note that words mean a lot.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Business did not like the way they had to do, you know business resents any kind of interference.

ROSIE ABELLA: I did not want to create anything but was going to be so resisted that it was not going to work.

ROSIE ABELLA: So, it was a much looser kind of obligation on the part of every organization in Canada.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: It was amazing because the companies who did that found what we knew they would find.

ROSIE ABELLA: They were paying the women less; there was a glass ceiling beyond which women did not go.

ROSIE ABELLA: They hired, they were very happy to hire women that in a certain executive level the women never got the positions.

ROSIE ABELLA: So they implemented something called Employment Equity, which I think has had, I think some effect.

ROSIE ABELLA: Where we are the women in Canada now is we have satisfied the numbers.

ROSIE ABELLA: There are many women in law school, there are many women in medical school, there are for most women very little change.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: But they are still paid less, they are still have no childcare, they experience violence.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: They have to work, it is not that they think it is a great luxury, they have no choice.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: It is measurable in a generation; it is measurable over time.

ROSIE ABELLA: So in this symphony of things that are going on, a number of court cases made an enormous difference.

ROSIE ABELLA: The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provision of the criminal code.

ROSIE ABELLA: We had the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1981.

ROSIE ABELLA: We now have three of them.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: This is what people said, “The merit system is at risk.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: We have not had one up until now.

ROSIE ABELLA: It is not reverse discrimination, it is reversing discrimination.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Because they created an equality right, you know they just took the word equality and they gave it substance.

ROSIE ABELLA: They said it is not what Aristotle 2000 years or when Aristotle was about.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Now, the result of all of that in the 70s and the 80s has resulted in the complete backlash in Canada.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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?

ROSIE ABELLA: Look how many women are in law schools, we have three women are on the Supreme Court of Canada .

ROSIE ABELLA: Women are now elected to government.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” I am on the Court of Appeal in the largest province, we have 21 judges and a province that has about 500 judges.

ROSIE ABELLA: So it is the last resort court.

ROSIE ABELLA: We have 4 women that is it.

ROSIE ABELLA: There is no reason, there are 500 judges in Ontario, 21 on my court because it is the last court.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: I don’t know how we get to the next stage, because we no longer have a strong women’s movement.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: So, in one generation we have gone through enormous improvements, enormous change and we are now a glacier again.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: The trouble was they thought of it as a family problem instead of a criminal problem.

ROSIE ABELLA: So, it was all about keeping families together, which was bizarre, because why did you come together something that was clearly so dysfunctional?

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: So we prosecute these things, we educate the judiciary, that these are important things which should be sentenced severely.

ROSIE ABELLA: It is not just a slap on the wrist, and read a hundred times I won’t beat my wife anymore.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” We have such an endemic problem with sexism that it is really built into the way men feel about women.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: So men felt they could do whatever they wanted at home with the wife, with child abuse is another problem.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Let me end on this because as a judge I know what goes on inside and I know how it feels inside.

ROSIE ABELLA: If in a democracy there isn’t a protection for the independence of a court.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” Make the reforms that are necessary.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

YAEL DAYAN: There are three Knesset members, please sit down, you can sit around the table.

YAEL DAYAN: Everybody speaks English.

YAEL DAYAN: 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.

YAEL DAYAN: I want to introduce to Knesset member Naomi Chazan from Meretz, Member of Knesset Corlette Avital from One Israel.

YAEL DAYAN: A member of Knesset member Eliezer Cohen and other members of the status quo committee.

NAOMI CHAZAN: Eventually you said you have reached a side step but nothing essentially has changed.

NAOMI CHAZAN: The tools you have are the same, the difficulties you confront are at least well defined.

NAOMI CHAZAN: But the activism of the courts is now what it was, as you described in the 70s and the 80s.

NAOMI CHAZAN: So what has changed?

NAOMI CHAZAN: 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.

NAOMI CHAZAN: So, I don’t understand how you explain the process that appears to exist.

NAOMI CHAZAN: That is the first question.

NAOMI CHAZAN: Then obviously I have a follow up.

ROSIE ABELLA: The standstill we are in now is still a standstill which is a very different picture from 20 years ago.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: We did not have very much divorce.

ROSIE ABELLA: Suddenly there is a lot of activity in the family area.

ROSIE ABELLA: We did not have rates for gays, suddenly there are rates for people they did not think before were really part of the mainstream.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: So, the revolution before it entered parliament and before it entered the court was in the public.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: ” 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: Because of that feeling in the 60s and 70s we got the charter rights and freedoms.

ROSIE ABELLA: So it was the public feeling first and then the charter and then the court became muscular.

ROSIE ABELLA: 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.

ROSIE ABELLA: , but the history of rights is this relationship between the two bodies and it is a kind of partnership.

CORLETTE AVITAL: 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?