Private member's bill · 20th Knesset · published as law 1 March 2017

חוק איסור הפליה במוצרים, בשירותים ובכניסה למקומות בידור ולמקומות ציבוריים (תיקון מס' 4), התשע"ז-2017Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Admission to Entertainment Venues and Public Places (Amendment No. 4), 2017 · automatic translation · suggest a correction

Status: התקבלה בקריאה שלישית

Topics: Finance and consumer protection* · * from the Knesset's official law classification

Official summary of the law (Knesset)

The Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law, 2000 (hereinafter – the Law), provides that a person engaged in supplying a product or public service, or in operating a public place, shall not discriminate in the supply of the product or public service on the basis of various grounds of discrimination listed in the Law, including race, religion, sex and nationality. The Law further provides that an act or omission constituting such discrimination is a tortious wrong and a criminal offense. Amendment No. 4 to the Law (the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law (Amendment No. 4), 2017), is intended to prevent discrimination in the supply of a product or public service, or in the operation of a public place, on the basis of place of residence, by adding this ground to the prohibited grounds of discrimination. However, a distinction made by a local authority between its residents and non-residents shall not be considered prohibited discrimination on the basis of place of residence as stated, if it is made to the extent required for the performance of the local authority's functions or the exercise of its powers for the benefit of its residents, and all subject to the provisions of any law. Amendment No. 4 to the Law also includes an indirect amendment to the Consumer Protection Law, 1981, intended to prohibit businesses from misleading consumers regarding the place to which the property or service will be supplied, including with respect to supplying the property or service to the Judea and Samaria area. Under the said amendment, the place of supply of the property or service shall be considered a material matter in the transaction, to which the prohibition on misleading under the Consumer Protection Law applies. It is further provided that if the dealer misled the consumer regarding the place to which the property or service would be supplied, and did not supply the property or service to the place agreed between them after the consumer requested this, the court may award the consumer compensation not contingent on damage (exemplary compensation) in an amount not exceeding 10,000 NIS.

automatic translation · suggest a correction

Hebrew original

חוק איסור הפליה במוצרים, בשירותים ובכניסה למקומות בידור ולמקומות ציבוריים, התשס"א–2000 (להלן – החוק), קובע כי מי שעיסוקו בהספקת מוצר או שירות ציבורי או בהפעלת מקום ציבורי, לא יפלה בהספקת המוצר או השירות הציבורי, מחמת עילות הפליה שונות המנויות בחוק, ובהן גזע, דת, מין ולאום. עוד קובע החוק כי מעשה או מחדל הבא בגדר הפליה כאמור הוא עוולה נזיקית ועבירה פלילית. תיקון מס' 4 לחוק (חוק איסור הפליה במוצרים, בשירותים ובכניסה למקומות בידור ולמקומות ציבוריים (תיקון מס' 4), התשע"ז–2017), נועד למנוע הפליה בהספקת מוצר או שירות ציבורי או בהפעלת מקום ציבורי מחמת מקום מגורים, וזאת על ידי הוספת עילה זו לעילות ההפליה האסורות. ואולם, הבחנה שעורכת רשות מקומית בין תושביה ובין מי שאינם תושביה לא תיחשב כהפליה אסורה מחמת מקום מגורים כאמור, אם הדבר נעשה במידה הנדרשת לביצוע תפקידיה של הרשות המקומית או להפעלת סמכויותיה לטובת תושביה, והכול בכפוף להוראות כל דין. תיקון מס' 4 לחוק כולל גם תיקון עקיף לחוק הגנת הצרכן, התשמ"א–1981, שנועד לאסור על בתי עסק להטעות צרכנים לגבי המקום שאליו יסופק הנכס או השירות, לרבות לגבי הספקת הנכס או השירות לאזור יהודה ושומרון. לפי התיקון האמור, מקום הספקת הנכס או השירות ייחשב כעניין מהותי בעסקה שלגביו חל איסור הטעיה כאמור בחוק הגנת הצרכן. כמו כן, נקבע כי אם העוסק הטעה את הצרכן בעניין המקום שאליו יסופק הנכס או השירות, ולא סיפק את הנכס או השירות למקום שהוסכם ביניהם לאחר שהצרכן ביקש זאת, בית המשפט יהיה רשאי לפסוק לטובת הצרכן פיצוי שאינו תלוי בנזק (פיצוי לדוגמה) בסכום שלא יעלה על 10,000 ש"ח.

Sponsors

Shuli Moalem-Refaeli

Readings

What was said in the plenum

The bill, initiated by MK Shuli Moalem-Refaeli following an initiative begun by former MK Uri Orbach, seeks to add "place of residence" as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the provision of public products and services, including requiring businesses to disclose in advance to consumers if they will not provide service to their area of residence, and allowing for monetary compensation in cases of misrepresentation on this matter. The debate centered mainly on whether the law is intended to prevent discrimination against residents of the periphery and Arabs, or whether it is a tool for applying Israeli norms and granting legitimacy and benefits to settlements in Judea and Samaria, a move that its opponents called "creeping annexation."

automatic translation · suggest a correction

Hebrew original

הצעת החוק, שיזמה ח״כ שולי מועלם-רפאלי בהמשך למהלך שהחל ח״כ לשעבר אורי אורבך, מבקשת להוסיף ל״מקום מגורים״ כעילת אפליה אסורה באספקת מוצרים ושירותים ציבוריים, כולל חיוב עוסקים לגלות מראש לצרכן אם לא יספקו שירות לאזור מגוריו ולאפשר פיצוי כספי במקרה של הטעיה בנושא. הדיון נסב בעיקר סביב השאלה האם החוק נועד למנוע אפליה כלפי תושבי פריפריה וערבים, או שמדובר בכלי להחלת נורמות ישראליות ומתן לגיטימציה והטבות להתנחלויות ביהודה ושומרון, מהלך שכונה בפי מתנגדיו ״סיפוח זוחל״.

Arguments for

  • The law is intended to prevent a phenomenon of improper discrimination disguised as discrimination based on place of residence, which harms residents of the periphery, Arab towns, and towns in Judea and Samaria alike.
    Shuli Moalem-Refaeli (Jewish Home), שרת המשפטים איילת שקד, Michal Rozin (Meretz), Eitan Cabel (Zionist Union)
  • There is concrete evidence that companies and service providers refuse to supply products or charge additional fees solely due to place of residence, without substantive justification such as distance or security.
    Shuli Moalem-Refaeli (Jewish Home), Michal Rozin (Meretz), Haim Jelin (Yesh Atid), Eitan Cabel (Zionist Union)
  • The law establishes a proportionate mechanism (the "similar distance test") that leaves businesses free to determine their service radius, but requires transparency and prohibits discrimination within that radius, while providing special protection for small businesses.
    Shuli Moalem-Refaeli (Jewish Home), שרת המשפטים איילת שקד, Eitan Cabel (Zionist Union)
  • It is unacceptable for citizens who contribute to the state, including by risking their lives, to be required to suffer discrimination relative to other citizens.
    שרת המשפטים איילת שקד
  • As long as the state sends citizens to live in certain areas and does not decide otherwise, it is not right to abandon them economically and deny them basic services.
    Eitan Cabel (Zionist Union)

Arguments against

  • The law is actually intended to apply Israeli law and norms to the settlements in Judea and Samaria, thereby advancing creeping annexation and granting them legal legitimacy and normalization, contrary to their status as occupied territory under international law.
    Yousef Jabareen (Joint List), Zehava Galon (Meretz), Esawi Frej (Meretz), Abd Al Hakeem Haj Yahya (Joint List), Basel Ghattas (Joint List), Masud Ganaim (Joint List), Dov Khenin (Joint List), Osama Saadi (Joint List)
  • The comparison between discrimination against Arab citizens or residents of the periphery and the difficulty experienced by settlers in receiving services is cheap and unfair, since these are fundamentally different situations – citizenship versus settlement in occupied territory where land was not seized.
    Aida Touma Sliman (Joint List), Abd Al Hakeem Haj Yahya (Joint List)
  • Existing law already prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality and race, and therefore does not need protection for Arab towns, while in practice its real purpose is to protect those who, for legitimate ideological reasons, refuse to provide service in settlements, and it therefore infringes on freedom of political expression.
    Yousef Jabareen (Joint List)
  • Place of residence is a matter of choice and not an inherent characteristic like race or gender, and therefore this is not discrimination that harms human dignity, and in any case private commercial companies cannot be compelled to provide service everywhere.
    Michal Rozin (Meretz)
  • The government is not showing genuine willingness to address the ongoing discrimination and deprivation faced by the Arab population, and it is not fair to bring forward such a law specifically now and in this manner.
    Yousef Jabareen (Joint List), Itzik Shmuli (Zionist Union), Yehiel Hilik Bar (Zionist Union), Ahmad Tibi (Joint List)
Who spoke (19)
MemberFactionReadingsSpeechesIn the final vote
Shuli Moalem-RefaeliJewish Home coalitionFirst reading, Third reading7for
שרת המשפטים איילת שקד—First reading4—
Yousef JabareenJoint List oppositionFirst reading, Third reading5against
Michal RozinMeretz oppositionFirst reading4against
Zehava GalonMeretz oppositionFirst reading3no record
Esawi FrejMeretz oppositionFirst reading2against
Aida Touma SlimanJoint List oppositionFirst reading2against
Abd Al Hakeem Haj YahyaJoint List oppositionFirst reading, Third reading4against
Itzik ShmuliZionist Union oppositionFirst reading3against
Basel GhattasJoint List oppositionFirst reading2no record
Yoel HassonZionist Union oppositionFirst reading7against
Yehiel Hilik BarZionist Union oppositionFirst reading6no record
Haim JelinYesh Atid oppositionFirst reading7for
Eitan CabelZionist Union oppositionThird reading4for
Masud GanaimJoint List oppositionThird reading1against
Ahmad TibiJoint List oppositionThird reading1no record
Dov KheninJoint List oppositionThird reading2against
Osama SaadiJoint List oppositionThird reading1against
Abdullah Abu MaarufJoint List oppositionThird reading1against

An automatic summary of the plenum transcripts: the debate on the bill at every reading it was voted on. Arguments are given as the speakers made them; this is not an assessment. The list of speakers comes from the transcript, without a model. Transcripts of the sittings: 1, 2, 3

Reservations to the second reading

No reservations were filed to this bill.

Asked to speak: Ayman Odeh (Joint List), Masud Ganaim (Joint List), Jamal Zahalka (Joint List), Ahmad Tibi (Joint List), Aida Touma Sliman (Joint List), Abd Al Hakeem Haj Yahya (Joint List), Hanin Zoabi (Joint List), Dov Khenin (Joint List), Talab Abu Arar (Joint List), Yousef Jabareen (Joint List), Osama Saadi (Joint List), Abdullah Abu Maaruf (Joint List)

Committee version for the second and third reading (PDF)

Reservations, sections and other votes (1)

In order. Votes on reservations and individual sections are shown separately from the vote on the bill as a whole.

Source: bill page in the Knesset legislation database ↗

Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Admission to Entertainment Venues and Public Places (Amendment No. 4), 2017 · How the Knesset Votes