'Kosher buses' just the beginning?
Photo: Gal Ilan
Taliban already here
Gideon Eshet slams growing gender-based discrimination in Israel’s public sphere
Three years ago, Naomi Rashi and her partner opened an account at the Poali Agudat Israel Bank. The Rashi family’s financial status is apparently solid, as can be concluded by the invitation they received from the bank to attend a meeting for preferred customers. However, this preference is given to “men only,” and thank you Army Radio for breaking this story.
As it turns out, the Israeli branch of Bank Taliban isn’t the only one. Channel Two recently reported that the Clalit HMO introduced separate lines for men and women at Jerusalem clinics. They even outdid the Afghani tradition and recommended that patients seek doctors of the same gender.
Segregation?
Bus from Kiryat Gat to Kiryat Malachi forced to wait at station for long time when passenger refuses to have a woman sit next to him, shoving her with his elbow. Man refuses to switch seats, despite other available ones
Both the bank and the HMO justify this policy by referring to the “needs of the customers.” We can assume that if the rabbis of the Islamic sect would seek to engage in female circumcisions the Clalit HMO would be happy to comply. And should those same Islamic clerics insist on interest-free loans, in line with Muslim law, the Poali Agudat Israel Bank will “act in line with this code of conduct.”
The bank also defended its action by claiming that those are the local customs – “For example: Segregated bus lines…and of course, private functions that feature segregation.” Apparently, the bank’s spokespeople forgot that the Transportation Ministry ruled that gender-based segregation on buses is discrimination and constitutes a violation of the law. At the Clalit HMO too, questions pertaining to human rights seem irrelevant vis-à-vis the effort to “match service options to the customers’ profile.”
This requires us to come up with an example, hypothetical for now. Let’s say that in a state called Germany, that never existed, we see an HMO that introduces separate lines for Jews and non-Jews. This move is based on the HMO’s desire to provide service to its customers, in this case a fundamentalist Christian who can’t stand Jews in his line. How would that look to us? So what’s the difference between discrimination against women and against Jews if what matters is customer service?
Simple rule of thumb
And why should we stop with this Jewish ghetto? We all know that wealthy Interior Ministry customers don’t like to stand in line in order to get a passport. So why don’t we introduce separate lines to high income earners, which would certainly constitute a “preferred customer” status, and just like the bank did, the government too will “take the feelings of its clients” into consideration?”
All of the above raises the following question: What is the government doing in the face of misused public funds (in the case of the Clalit HMO) or government license (in the case of the buses and the bank)? The transportation ministry ruled that gender-based segregation is illegal. So what? What do we do next?
Here is a simple rule of thumb: When it comes to private functions, people can do whatever they wish. They can choose separate dancing for men and for women, for example. Yet in public places, all the clever explanations stemming from anti-Semitism or discrimination against women should not exist. HMOs, just like banks, or schools, or any provider of public service cannot turn the public sphere into a private haredi wedding.
And this means that the Transportation Ministry should revoke, following proper warning, the license of a discriminating transportation company. Meanwhile, the bank regulator must make it clear to the banks that they are not in the business of satisfying clients on the basis of race or gender. Finally, the Health Ministry must cut the budget of an HMO that dares adopt the Clalit example.
There is one person who can enforce this: The government’s legal position is determined by the attorney general. And should Menachem Mazuz rule that discriminatory “customer service” is illegal, everyone will toe the line.
