Zeev is promoting this proposal after he failed last year to thwart the mass nude photo shoot at the Dead Sea by Spencer Tunick.
According to Zeev:
The determination that pornographic expression (including public nudity for art or advertising) is protected by freedom of expression and is an expression of human creation in the modern era and promotes public discourse, is contrary to the basic principle mentioned in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
When progress in 'the public discourse' comes at the expense of a broad public of Jews, Muslims, Christians and members of other religions in the country, and constitutes an insult to religious precepts regarding modesty and a serious transgression of forbidden sexual relations, and infringes on religious sentiments of religious citizens – this is a violation of their rights and a fundamental restriction must be placed on itThe ministerial committee will vote on the proposal on Sunday, and if it passes the committee vote it will then move to the Knesset.
I agree with Zeev's proposal. Liberal as I am, I don't think the appropriate place for nudity is wherever you feel like it. Perhaps more nude beaches will need to be designated, if there is such a high demand and the current amount does not satisfy that need, but keep your clothes on until you get to a place that is designated for such behavior.
The question might be what is considered public nudity. I can imagine some protest group attacking this by having a mass amount of people walk around in the most minimal amount of clothing (in Hebrew we would say "ha'minimum she'ba'minimum") and saying that there is just a hair breadth of distance between this and that.
What type of dress is appropriate for the public realm? If public nudity is illegal, will people start walking around in bikinis, speedos and thongs and insist that it is perfectly legal? Perhaps the backlash will be almost as bad a result as what the law is intending to protect us from? I don't think most people want to walk around like that, but I can envision such a scenario, generally in the name of art.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Laws like this are begging to be mocked and derided. Not a good idea for someone to put their name behind.
ReplyDeleteIs public nudity such a problem in Israel that public money needs to be spent updating the law?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea, Yoni. The various articles mentioned the exception to the law being beaches (or other locations) designated for nudity. I wasnt aware that any such beaches existed, and I dont know how many there are. There were always rumors of one in Eilat, but I dont know that the rumor is true.
ReplyDeleteThis is a totally ridiculous law, not to say unnecessary. The Spencer Tunick photo is not an infringement of anyone's human rights because people who don't like it should have kept away. People are not walking round nude and if there are places where they wear less than you think appropriate, then keep away or look away if you don't like it. This is like the sign in Osher Ad to protect the sensibilities of the Haredi shoppers and the comments I saw that people should respect the shop and the shoppers and not dress like they were on the beach. Stop telling people what to do and let everyone get on with their lives.
ReplyDeleteQuestion of clarification - are there currently no laws prohibiting indecent exposure in the State of Israel? Or are there such laws, but (like in some European countries) nudity is not considered "indecent" and MK Zeev wants to change it so that it is (as in most U.S. states)? Or maybe nudity is already called "indecent", but he simply wants to make it illegal to grant people like Tunick special permits?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, it seems to me the real issue here is about religious coercion. Because while it's reasonable even in secular civil society to ban public nudity, without using any religious justification, MK Zeev cites the sensitivity to religious people as a justification for such a law. And when freedom of individual expression is blocked by law out of sensitivity to religious people (even if it's reasonable by Western civil law standards), that will be seen by the secular public as religious coercion.
My feeling is that there's a place for debating a more conservative vs. liberal approach to what's "indecent" with respect to the law, and certainly there's a place to educate people about being more sensitive to one another, but to "legislate" that sensitivity is probably a bad idea and will only breed further distrust between religious and secular populations.
I dnt know about the current law. There must be some law, as I think Spencer Tunick got his shoot allowed under an exception of artistic freedom. This law is meant to shut that hole.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOne year in jail seems a bit crazy for taking off your cloths.
ReplyDelete