 |
Israel's Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law: Legal Base, Process and Impact
Arie Rimmerman and Shirley Avrami
Abstract
The article provides a review of the legal position prior and 10 years after the passage of the Israeli Equal Rights Law and discusses the updated status of the legislation. In addition, it examines the impact of the law in three core areas, accessibility, employment and the role of the commission in promoting equal rights. It concludes that like the ADA, the major difficulty is the lack of change in employment rate of people with disabilities. The following years will be judged with its ability to equip people with disabilities with the tools and resources how to benefit from this remarkable legislation.
Introduction
Until the 1960s, people with disabilities were perceived as incapable of integrating in society at large. In most Western countries, including Israel, disability was addressed as an aspect of social security and welfare legislation, health law, or guardianship (Bickenbach, 2001; Driedger, 1989; Florian & Dangor, 1999; Fougeyrollas & Beauregard, 2001; Scotch 1984; Shapiro, 1993). People with disabilities were viewed as objects of welfare, health, and charity programs (Braddock & Parish, 2001).
This approach is associated with the medical model, by which illness or disability is the result of a physical condition. This condition may reduce level of functioning and quality of life, and causes clear disadvantages to the individual. Therefore, social policy, associated with this approach, invests resources in health care and related services in an attempt to improve functioning thus allowing disabled persons a more "normal" life (Drake, 1999). People that have functional difficulties or unable to work and be economically sufficient, receive social benefits according to their severity of their disability.
The calls for a human rights approach to disability law and social policy were made against a background of specific entitlements and other social welfare provisions found primarily in the areas of health, rehabilitation, transportation, education and employment. Many of these provisions were originally political responses to the needs of war veterans or people with work-related disabilities (Liachowitz 1988; Stone 1984). As a result, disability programs and policies around the world have tended to be reactive and piecemeal responses to specific social conditions rather than fully coordinated and integrated into an overall social policy (Drake, 1999).
Since the 1960s, there has been growing recognition that the exclusion and segregation of people with disabilities is not a logical outcome of their impairments, but results from political choices based on false assumptions about disabled people in an able-bodied society. Thus, the focus has shifted from viewing disability as an individual problem, as embodied in the medical model, to defining it as a failure of society to offer accessible environments and social opportunities (Johnstone, 2001. This paradigm shift increases the awareness to discrimination against people with disability and the need to address disability rights issues and to redefine legislation (Bickenbach, 2001; Johnstone, 2001).
The 1990 passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the United States was a watershed event for disability rights on the international stage (Bickenbach, 2001). The ADA recognized that discrimination against people with disabilities in the form of purposeful unequal treatment and historical patterns of segregation and isolation was the major problem confronting people with disabilities, not their individual impairments. As such, the ADA bars discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications (Bickenbach, 2001; Johnstone, 2001).
Since its enactment in the United States, many countries have passed similar disability laws, shifting the focus from a social welfare approach to a human rights approach (Degener, 2005). The new wave of ground-breaking domestic disability rights legislation has been mirrored by the adoption of a series of human rights instruments on the international plane. Most recently this process has reached a climax, with the decision of the United Nations General Assembly, in December 2006 to adopt the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The Israeli Knesset (parliament) enacted the three first chapters of the Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law in 1998. In 2005 the Knesset passed the detailed for the chapters above. The first analysis of the law has been reported in two articles by Avrami and Rimmerman (2005) and Rimmerman, Araten, Avrami & Azaiza (2005). These articles, published five years after the passage of the first three chapters of the law, examined whether the idea of equal rights presented in the first three chapters of the law was assimilated by Israeli society. In addition, they compared the impact of the Israeli legislation with similar laws in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The current article reviews the legal position prior to and 10 years after the enactment of the Equal Rights Law and discusses in depth the legal status of each provision. In addition, assesses the implementation in three core areas: accessibility, employment and the role of the commission in promoting equal rights.
Israel's new disability rights legislation: History
Despite efforts to develop a set of laws for people with disabilities over a period of 50 years following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Israeli Knesset (parliament) failed to set an integrative and consistent disability policy. The major disability programs were enacted over a period of years and reflect the varying values and pool of resources available at the time. Thus, the programs differ in the ways in which they determine eligibility and reflect different principles (e.g. the need for social security, compensation and insurance). The three major pieces of legislation for people with disabilities are the Veterans with Disabilities Law of 1959, The Work-Related Disability Law of 1954 and the General Disabilities Law of 1975.
These laws identified eligibility based on the medical model and the nature and severity of the impairment. Individuals who demonstrated deficiencies or deficits were offered social welfare benefits. For instance, the Veterans with Disabilities Law is based on the compensation principle. It was introduced shortly after the establishment of the State of Israel and was prompted by the need to compensate those who had become disabled through military service. The law granted a basic cash benefit, calculated on the basis of nature and severity of the medical impairment, and a civil service wage. This benefit was not linked to the individual's financial situation or to his or her ability to work (Gal, 2001).
The Work-Related Disability Law provides temporary and permanent cash benefits to those injured on the job or who have contracted a work-related disease. The benefits provided are calculated primarily (though not exclusively) by assessing the impact of the disabilities on the functional capacity of the victims and on their previous earnings. The program is based on a combination of insurance and compensation principles in the social welfare context (Gal, 2001).
Finally, The General Disability Law was adopted after most of the other disability programs were already in place. It seeks to provide a guaranteed minimum income to disabled individuals who are not covered by other programs. The basis of this program is the 'need principle'. The cash benefits are intended to provide a minimal income to individuals with disabilities who are either unable to work at all or whose capacity to engage in substantial gainful employment has been significantly undermined because of disability. Accordingly, need is identified through two different tests; the degree of medical disability and its impact on the individual's earning capacity (Gal, 2001). Over the years, the statutory compensation and benefits schemes were supplemented by a number of extra-statutory schemes operated by various government ministries. For example, the Ministry of Social Services allocates "maintenance payments" for the purpose of residential accommodation for mentally retarded persons; and the Ministry of Health grants financial aid for the purchase of special equipment such as wheelchairs and hearing aids or for the provision of medical assistants. These additional schemes are not established by statute and, as such, are subject to budgetary fluctuations.
Prior to enactment of the Equal Rights Law, most of the legislation was related to social benefits, and marginally to disability rights issues such as accessibility. For example, the primary piece of legislation concerning accessibility was a piecemeal amendment made in 1981 to the Planning and Building Law, together with the accompanying regulations. Since the scheme applies only to buildings, places open to the public which are not buildings (such as public parks, cemeteries) are exempt, together with services designated for public use such as transport, cultural and recreational facilities or banking services. A similar limit to accessibility in old laws is found in The Special Provisions for Deaf Persons Law, enacted in 1992: Subtitling is limited to a mere 25% of non-live television broadcasts. As for News, the requirement of sign language translation applies to one weekly program.
The only legislation pre-dating the Equal Rights Law taking account of the rights-based approach was the Special Education Law of 1988. Integration of children and adolescents with special needs within the general education system was designated a priority. However the provisions of the law in this respect were unclear, and gave rise to litigation as to whether the state was obliged to fund the costs of mainstreaming.
As for most other walks of life in which the institutional discrimination of people with disabilities is pronounced, legislation predating the Equal Rights Law was silent. In the field of employment, the principal statute dealing with equality - the Equal Opportunities in Employment Law (1988) - ignored the disability community. The concept of living in the community was not found in law. In contrast with the attention devoted to children's special needs, legislation relating to police interrogation and the giving of testimony in court did nothing to cater for the special needs of persons with mental and psychiatric disabilities who are the victims of violent crimes and sexual offences.
Current Trends
It was the Supreme Court decision in the case of Shahar Botser in 1996 that made a legal breakthrough. The Supreme Court ruled that Shahar, a boy who uses a wheelchair on account of muscular dystrophy, was entitled to access all areas in his school. Basing the decision on general principles of equality and human dignity, Chief Justice Barak stated: "The disabled person is a human being who deserves equal rights. Neither outside society nor on its margins, the person with disability is an ordinary member of his society. The purpose of the [regulations in question] is not to improve the quality of his isolation, but rather to integrate him - on occasions using affirmative action-- into the regular fabric of society."
The Equal Rights Law: The Legislative Process
It is quite difficult to evaluate the impact of the Botser decision upon Israeli society, in particular on the legal system. The case marked the recognition that lack of accessibility could not be responded by the Planning and Building Law of 1981, but by comprehensive rights-based legislation. The original Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Bill of 1995 which was initiated by "Bizchut," the Israel Human Rights Center for Persons with Disabilities, was an exemplary piece of such comprehensive legislation. The bill embraced the major disabilities - such as physical, mental, psychiatric and sensory - as well as the entire spectrum of interaction between persons with disabilities and society as a whole, with regard to employment, accessibility of public places and services, living in the community, personal assistance, education, culture and leisure, legal procedures, special needs and social security.
Following the first reading of the Equal Rights Bill in 1996, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labor and Social Affairs appointed the Public Commission on Comprehensive Legislation concerning the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, headed by former Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, Dr. Israel Katz. At the heart of the Commission's report, submitted in 1997, was its call for the enactment of comprehensive and detailed legislation and its unequivocal opinion that only legislation of this kind "can narrow the existing gap between the reality of life for persons with disabilities and the principles of equality and human dignity, which are among the basic principles of Israeli society."
Not only was the Katz Commission's report the textual focal point of ensuing discussions of the equality legislation in the Knesset. Submission of the report, together with a concerted campaign on the part of persons with disabilities, paved the way to the enactment of the Equal Rights Law in 1998.
The 1998 Law was but a partial enactment of the original Equal Rights Bill, comprising five out of ten chapters - Basic Principles, General Principles, Employment, Public Transport Services, and Commission for Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities. Postponed to a later stage in the legislative process were key chapters dealing with accessibility of public places and services other than transport services, living in the community, personal assistance, education, culture and leisure, legal procedures, special needs. In March 2005, following months of lengthy discussions in the Knesset and intensive negotiations with the Ministry of Finance, an extensive amendment to the Equal Rights Law was passed, dealing with accessibility of public places and services.
The Equal Rights Law: Core Provisions
The two opening chapters of the Equal Rights Law, entitled Fundamental Principles and General Principles lay the constitutional grounds for ensuing operative provisions on employment, accessibility and the Equal Rights Commission. Couched in the language of a Basic Law, the initial sections of the Law enshrine the basic right of a person with disabilities to equality, human dignity, and active participation in society in all walks of life. Patronizing interference with personal autonomy is replaced by the right of a person with disabilities to make decisions regarding his/her own life. Another fundamental principle is the legitimacy of affirmative action programs where persons with disabilities are concerned. The General Principles chapter also establishes the universal right of a person with disabilities to exercise his/her rights within the existing institutions of society, as opposed to segregated frameworks.
In defining its constituent population, The Equal Rights Law embraces the holistic approach embodied in the paradigm shift, by defining a "person with a disability", as "a person with a physical, emotional or mental disability, including a cognitive disability, permanent or temporary, as a result of which that person's functioning is substantially limited in one or more of the major spheres of life". This definition emphasizes the person first and disability second, whereas the previous legislation referred primarily to the person's impairment and illness.
At the heart of the chapters of the Law on employment, public transport services and other public places and services is the adoption of a broad definition of discrimination. Thus the prohibition on discrimination in all of these areas includes, but is not limited to, failure to make reasonable accommodations which will enable persons with disabilities to integrate into the world of work and to access public places and services as others do.
Expanding on the pro-active approach embodied in the obligation to make reasonable accommodations. Reasonable accommodations are changes made to a job or the workplace to enable an employee or job applicant to successfully perform the position's basic duties and/or protect his or her health. A reasonable accommodation does not change the essential functions of the job. Whether a particular accommodation request is reasonable depends upon the situation and the type of job. The accommodation cannot be extremely costly or disruptive for the employer.
The employment chapter requires the civil service and other employers with more than 25 employees to promote "appropriate representation" of persons with disabilities in the work force. Alongside the prohibition on discrimination, the duty to make reasonable accommodations and the obligation to promote appropriate representation, the Law requires the State to provide practical assistance to equal opportunities employers: regulations under the Law provide for substantial, albeit partial, financing by the State of employment accommodations.
Following the 2005 amendment to the Law, the bulk of its now numerous sections is devoted to them new accessibility regime: As part of the prohibition on disability-based discrimination in the operation of public places and the provision of public services, the Equal Rights Law now requires that these be made accessible, such that persons with physical, sensory, psychiatric, mental, cognitive and developmental disabilities will be able to benefit to the full from public services and will be able to enter a public place, move around and enjoy its facilities to the full. The accessibility regime applies to public places and services operated by the state and other public authorities, as well as to those operated by the private sector. Existing buildings, as well as entirely new construction must be made accessible. The vast array of accommodations is to be set out in a series of detailed regulations.
Determined that the Equal Rights Law would not be a 'dead letter', the Knesset adopted the Katz Commission's unequivocal recommendation to establish a central state-funded body, the Commission for Equal Rights of Persons with Disabilities, whose express statutory mission is to promote the fundamental principles of the law and to enforce its operative provisions. The Commission's enforcement role has been enhanced by virtue of the 2005 amendment: In addition to filing a civil claim for violation of the provisions of the employment chapter, in relation to violation of accessibility provisions the Commission may either file a civil claim or, subject to providing notice as required by the Law, issue an accessibility order setting out the various steps required in order to make a particular place or service accessible, together with a time frame for so doing. The Law provides for the appointment of a sole commissioner to head the Commission, together with an advisory committee to the Commission a majority of whose members are persons with disabilities.
The enactment of the Equal Rights Law in 1998 was followed by a new generation of rights-based statutes and amendments in various fields: The Law for the Rehabilitation of Persons with Psychiatric Disabilities in the Community (2000) establishes the right of a person with a psychiatric disability to a comprehensive rehabilitation program. The Day Rehabilitation Centers Law (2000) provides for the right of a young severely disabled child aged 1-3 to treatment and education at a special day rehabilitation center. An amendment to the Property Law passed in 2001 provides the statutory framework for making accommodations to the common parts of apartment buildings, in some cases without even the consent of other residents. An extensive amendment to the Special Education Law passed in 2002 makes a series of provisions for the right of children with disabilities to integrate into the regular school system.
The enactment of the accessibility amendment to the Equal Rights Law in March 2005 was followed by the passage that same year of two additional related laws - the Television Broadcasts (Subtitles and Sign Language) Law which passed in July 2005; and the Interrogation and Testification Procedure (Accommodations for persons with mental and psychiatric disabilities) Law, which passed in November 2005.
The impact on accessibility and employment and the role of the commission
Throughout the legislative process determined efforts were made, primarily by persons with disabilities and their organizations, to ensure that the Equal Rights Law would be put into practice. A review of the extent to which these efforts have succeeded would be premature, at least in relation to the provisions of the Law on accessibility of public places and services. It is expected that the new accessibility regime under the 2005 amendment will only enter into force once the regulations have been published, and this process has not yet been completed due to the complexity of the subject matter. Furthermore, due to the substantial costs of making existing public buildings and infrastructure accessible, long periods of gradual implementation have been prescribed. The public sector has been given the exceptionally long period of 12 years (11 years in the case of health services and emergency services), in view of the wide range of places and services for which the public sector is responsible, and the extremely narrow scope of exemptions enjoyed by any body financed by the public purse. The private sector on the other hand, to which the economic exemption of an "undue burden" is available, has been given a much shorter gradual implementation period of 6 years.
Implementation is considerably more advanced where accessibility of public transport services is concerned. Since this had a "head start," by being included in the original Equal Rights Law of 1998, there are regulations in place, albeit published only in 2003. The Transport Accessibility Regulations also provide for gradual implementation - over periods ranging from two to 10 years in relation to trains, aircraft and boats. Buses produced as from 2002 have to be made accessible.
Whilst the new accessibility regime is, for the most part, still in the process of being established, the potential created by the Equal Rights Law for its enforcement, once in place, is immense. Persons with disabilities, the Equal Rights Commissions, NGO's and others will be able to activate a wide variety of enforcement mechanisms, which are both preventative and reactive in nature. Building permits and business licenses relating to public places and services will be conditional upon the approval of a licensed accessibility expert, stating that all the relevant accessibility requirements have been met. In additional to the Commission's special powers to issue accessibility orders, persons with disabilities or a disability-rights NGO may file an individual civil claim or a class action suit with a view to making a public place or service accessible in accordance with the Regulations. Should the court uphold the claim, it may, in addition to the usual remedies (injunction and/or damages) award punitive damages not exceeding 50,000 NIS, without proof of actual damage.
As opposed to the new accessibility regime, the employment provisions of the Equal Rights Law have been on the statute book since 1998 and entered into force in 1999. In the eight years that have passed since then, it would seem reasonable to expect to see an improvement in the employment situation of persons with disabilities as a result of the Law. Unfortunately, all the evidence shows that the high unemployment figures for persons with disabilities which obtained prior to the passage of the Law remain unchanged. For example, among recipients of the general disability benefit from the Israeli National Insurance Institute (Israel's version of Social Security), ages 18 to 65, only 15% are in an employment framework, only 10% of them are employed in supported employment positions in the open market, and the rest are in sheltered employment. Experts estimate, however, that at least 40% of those in sheltered employment frameworks are capable of integrating into supported employment, which would give them the opportunity to work in the open market. (Sandler-Loeff, Strosberg, & Naon, 2003). Disappointment with the apparent failure of the Israeli Law in the employment field would seem to be mirrored by the American experience. It is now generally accepted that the ADA has not resulted in the substantial employment gains for individuals with disabilities that its proponents had predicted (Lee, 2003; National Organization on Disability, 2002).
An optimistic antidote to the gloomy Israeli employment statistics is provided, in some measure, by case law now developing in the labor courts: The first case to be decided, Balilti (2001), touched upon appropriate representation provisions: it was held that the obligation to give preference to employees with disabilities over other similarly qualified employees applies when selecting for redundancy as well as to hiring and promotion. The duty to make reasonable accommodations was the subject of the Steinberg case decided in 2003: here it was held that an employer is under a duty to find alternative suitable employment for an employee who has become disabled during the course of his employment. In contrast to the American experience, the definition of a "person with a disability" has arisen in only one decided case, De Castro Dekel in 2005, in which it was held that an employee with cancer was a person with a disability. Taking these cases, together with the substantially delayed promulgation of the regulations concerning state financing of accommodations in 2006, and failure to make regulations concerning appropriate representation, it is clear that the full potential for implementation of the employment provisions of the Equal Rights Law has yet to be realized.
Implementation of the third and final operative part of the law, concerning the establishment of the Equal Rights Commission, has also proven to be a gradual, long-term process. The Commission was established in August 2000, and has been active since then in a number of areas, including the promotion of co-operation between the various bodies (public private and voluntary) active in the field, expansion of accessibility to public places and services, including public transport, adaptation of emergency services to the needs of people with disabilities, commissioning research and surveys, taking an active role in the formulation of new legislation, public relations campaigns raising awareness in the field of accessibility and to the rights of people with disabilities in general. The Commission has faced political and administrative challenges. There have been political pressures from disability groups to set the Commission's agenda and to strengthen the role of the advisory committee. The Commission's moderate budget is another obstacle in keeping and expanding its central role.
An account of the principal perceptible effects of the Equal Rights Law would not be complete without speaking to its impact on areas which are not the subject of any specific statutory provision. The Law has profoundly changed the nature of public discourse concerning persons with disabilities. Public authorities now employ the language of human rights in this context, a fact evidenced by the State Comptroller's Report of 2002. Dealing with the integration of persons with disabilities in the workplace and in society at large, the comprehensive findings and conclusions of the Comptroller paint a bleak picture. However the Comptroller's standpoint throughout is that of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Equal Rights Law. It was these fundamental rights which guided the Supreme Court on the eve of the 1999 general elections, when it ordered the State to produce a quick and effective solution to the inaccessibility of most polling stations in Israel. The solution, which allows for persons with disabilities to vote in any accessible polling station wherever that may be, was later put on a statutory footing in an amendment to the Knesset Elections Law.
Stein & Stein (2007) argued that despite many positive affects American disability civil rights legislation has not brought about equality on its own. A clear example is that though the ADA forbids employment discrimination, the fact is that post-ADA disabled Americans continue to experience disproportionately high rates of unemployment. Similar findings are observed in Israel. And, as seems to be the case in the post-ADA USA, Israeli legislation has not been translated to practical gains in employment and social and civic participation. There is recognition that using equality and social justice language is remarkable but people with disabilities require both resources and the opportunity to utilize those resources to achieve their potential. The Israeli disability rights legislation, as probably the ADA, will be judged in years to come with its ability to contribute to their full inclusion in society.
References
Auphir, A., & Oren, D. (2001). The Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law-- A Case of Late Twentieth Century Emancipation. In Aharon Barak, Steve Adler, Ruth Ben-Israel, Isaac Eliasoff, & Nahum Feinberg (eds.) In tribute to Menachem Goldberg, Sadan Publishing, (pp. 42-87) (In Hebrew)
Avrami, S., & Rimmerman, A. (2005). Israel's equal rights for persons with disabilities law: Is it really equal rights? Social Security, 68, 51-69.
Bickenbach, J. E. (2001). Disability, human rights, law and policy in creation. In G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 565-574). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Braddock, D. L., & Parish, S. (2001) An institutional history of disability. In G.L. Albrecht, K.D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies (pp. 565-574). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Drake, R.F. (1999). Understanding disability politics. London: Macmillan.
Degener, T. (2005). Disability Discrimination Law: A Global Comparative Approach. In Anna Lawson & Caroline, Gooding (eds.) Disability Rights in Europe: From Theory to Practice (pp. 87-106), Oxford and Portland: Hart
Driedger, D. (1989). The last civil rights movement. London: Hurst.
Florian,V., & Dangor, N. (1999). Main issues in the rehabilitation in Israel. Society & Welfare, 19, 193-212.
Fougeyrollas, P., & Beauregard, L. (2001). The interactive person-environment in disability in creation. in G. L. Albrecht, K. D. Seelman, & M. Bury (Eds.), Handbook of disability studies. (pp. 171-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gal, J.(2001).The perils of compensation in social welfare policy: Disability policy in Israel. Social Service Review, 75, 225-244.
Johnstone, D. (2001). An introduction to disability studies. London: David Fulton.
Lee, B.A. (2003). A decade of the mercies with disabilities act: Judicial outcomes and unresolved problems. Industrial Relations, 42, 11-30.
Liachowitz, C. H. (1988). Disability as a social construct: Legislative roots. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
National Organization on Disability (2002). N.O.D./Harris Surveys of community participation. New York: Harris Interactive.
Oren D., & Dagan, N. (Forthcoming) The Statutory Accessibility Revolution (Hebrew)
Quinn, G., & Degener, T. (2002). Human rights and disability: The current use and future potential of United Nations human rights instruments in the context of disability. Geneva: United Nations.
Report of the Public Commission on Comprehensive Legislation concerning the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1997). Jerusalem: Government Press Office
Rimmerman, A. (1998). Factors relating to attitudes of Israeli corporate executives toward the employability of persons with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 23, 245-254.
Rimmerman, A., Araten, T., Avrami, S., & Azaiza, F. (2005). Israel's Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law: Current status and future directions. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25 (part two) (on line).
Rimmerman, A., & Herr, S.S. (2004).The power of the powerless: A study of the 2000's disability strike in Israel. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15, 12-18.
Rimmerman, A., & Katz, S. (2004). Sheltered employment policies toward people with severe disabilities: Comparison among Israel and other countries. Social Security, 65, 111-135.
Russell, M. (2003). Backlash, the political economy and structural exclusion. In Linda Krieger, (ed.), Backlash against the Americans with Disabilities Act: Reinterpreting disability rights: Corporeal ties, discourses of disability. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Stein, A.S., & Stein, P.J.S. (2007. Beyond disability civil rights. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/gladnetcollect/334
Cited International and Israeli Legislation
Shahar Botser and ors. v. Makabim Re'ut Local Authority and ors, HCD 7081/93, P.D. 50 (1), p. 19 (Hebrew).
Planning and Building Law, 5765-1965, Sefer Hachukim, 5765, p.307. Chapter V: 1 Special Provisions for Disabled Persons in Public Buildings, Planning and Building Regulations (Application for Planning Permission, Terms and Conditions of Planning Permission, Fees), 5770-1970. (Hebrew).
Equal Opportunities in Employment Law, 5748-1988, Sefer Hachukim, p.38 (Hebrew).
The Special Provisions for Deaf Persons Law, 1992-5792, Sefer Hachukim, 5792, p.116 (Hebrew).
Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Law, 5758-1998, Sefer Hachukim, p. 152
The Knesset Elections [Consolidated Version] Law, s.68A (Hebrew).
The Day Rehabilitation Centers Law, 5760-2000, Sefer Hachukim, p. 169 (Hebrew).
The Law for the Rehabilitation of Persons with Psychiatric Disabilities, 5760-2000, Sefer Hachukim 5760, p. 231 (Hebrew).
The Property Law (Amendment no. 23), 5762-2001, Sefer Hachukim, 5762, p.33 (Hebrew).
The Special Education Law (Amendment no. 7), 5763-2002, Sefer Hachukim 5763, p.90 (Hebrew).
The Equal Rights Law (Amendment no. 2), 5765-2005, Sefer Hachukim 5765, p.288 (Hebrew).
The Television Broadcasts (Subtitles and Sign Language) Law 5765-2005, Sefer Hachukim 5765, p.956 (Hebrew).
The Interrogation and Testification Procedure (Accommodations for persons with mental and psychiatric disabilities), 5766-2005, Sefer Hachukim 5766, p.42 (Hebrew).
Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (Accessibility to Public Transportation Services), 5763-2003, Kovetz Hatakkanot 6244, p.757 (Hebrew).
Equal Rights for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (State Contribution to the Financing of Accommodations), 5766-2006, Kovetz Hatakkanot 6480, p. 754 (Hebrew).
2968/01 Balilti v. Jerusalem Post Publications Ltd, Jerusalem District Labor Court (2.12.01) (Hebrew).
3706/03; 5712/03 Steinberg v. Israel Electric Company, Tel Aviv District Labor Court (3.12.03) (Hebrew).
1732/04 De Castro Dekel v. M.B.A. Hazorea (10.7.05)
Contributors:
Prof. Arie Rimmerman
Richard Crossman Professor of Social Welfare & Social Planning, School of Social Work, Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel and Distinguished Visiting Professor, the Newhouse School of Public Communication, Syracuse University, USA
Shirley Avrami
Director of the Research and Information Center, the Knesset (Parliament), Jerusalem
Corresponding author: Arie Rimmerman
Email: rimmer@research.haifa.ac.il
Author Biography:
Arie Rimmerman is Richard Crossman Professor of Social Welfare and Social Planning and founder Dean of Social Welfare and Health Sciences and head of school of social work at University of Haifa, Israel. He is also a distinguished Visiting Professor at the Newhouse School of Public Communication, Syracuse University. His research focuses on five central areas: families of offspring with intellectual disabilities and in particular their decision-making processes through their life cycle; employment issues of people with disabilities; social and civil participation of people with disabilities, international comparative policies toward people with disabilities and media and disabilities.
Shirley Avrami is the director of the Research and Information Center of the Israeli parliament (Knesset). Her dissertation, supervised by Prof. Arie Rimmerman, has focused on attitudes of members of parliament toward the enactment of the Equal Rights for People with Disabilities Law. Her current research interest covers all areas of parliamentary activity, as requested by parliament members.
|
