A prominent nongovernmental organization dedicated to religious equality has petitioned the High Court of Justice on behalf of a resident of the haredi city of Elad, calling on the court to rescind a writ of refusal order issued by a rabbinical court because the petitioner had chosen to settle a dispute with a neighbor at a municipal court instead of "in house" with the rabbis.
According to Hiddush for Religious Freedom and Equality, the ordeal began when the petitioner's upstairs neighbors in Elad, near Petach Tikva, began to build a balcony illegally, blocking out the sun and preventing the petitioner from building a sukkah. According to Jewish law, a sukkah cannot be built in the shade.
After filing a lawsuit at the Petah Tikvah Magistrate's Court, the petitioner received a temporary injunction against her neighbors' construction, which is when the conflict heated up.
Circumventing the court's order, the petitioner's upstairs neighbors went to the local beit din (rabbinical court), which is "supported and endorsed by the municipality," according to Hiddush. The beit din ordered the petitioner to appear in court, though the beit din's order does not hold any legal weight. The petitioner refused, and so the court sent her a warning, along with a news piece that relayed a story about a man who failed to follow the beit din's orders and died prematurely.
Then, on Yom Kippur, the beit din issued a "writ of refusal" against the petitioner and her family, effectively ostracizing them from the city of Elad. Placards were hung on the streets, and denizens of the small city were instructed to treat her as if she had "rebelled against the Torah of Moses," because she had opted to utilize the state court system instead of the beit din, according to Hiddush. A writ of refusal in haredi society is extremely serious and can lead to boycotts and sanctions, including on a place of business or on marrying the children of those bearing the brunt of the writ.
Now, Hiddush -- represented by attorneys Uri Regev and Edna Meirav -- and the petitioner have headed to the High Court to have the writ of refusal order rescinded. According to Hiddush, "the rabbinical court illegally acted outside its jurisdiction, in a manner that constitutes an obstruction of justice and extortion by the beit din and the rabbis operating it."
Hiddush said the case "demonstrates the conflict between religion and state in Israel," demanding that the High Court nix the beit din's order so as not to set a precedent that would deter religious people from settling civil disputes in the civil legal system, such as the petitioner had done.
"These practices do not only impend on the rights and dignity of the members of these communities but are in direct breach of and threaten the Israeli Rule of Law as well," Hiddush wrote.
In March of this year, Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein ordered that letters of refusal from rabbinic courts should be addressed as a criminal offense, since they had no legal right to extort citizens from petitioning civilian courts. The attorney-general stated that issuing a refusal letter which contains social sanctions, condemnation and threats of boycott, may constitute a criminal offense of obstructing justice, deposition of testimony, impeachment of investigation and harassing a witness, and, in more severe cases, may even be considered an offense of threats or extortion.
"Letters of refusal," said Weinstein, "were originally intended to preserve the autonomy and the status of the judicial institutions of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora, but beit dins now operate in Israel, which is a Jewish and democratic state."
No comments:
Post a Comment