Adalah and Six Arab Youths Sue Beach in Tiberias for Racial Discrimination
On 25 March 2002, Adalah filed a precedent-setting lawsuit in Tiberias Magistrate Court on behalf of six young Arab men, against Livnon Beach on the Sea of Galilee in Tiberias, for racial discrimination. The plaintiffs, represented by Adalah Staff Attorney Jamil Dakwar, alleged that the manager of Livnon Beach prevented them from entering the beach because they are Arabs. The lawsuit is based on the newly enacted Law of Prohibition of Discrimination in Products and Services and in Entry to Entertainment and Public Facilities (2000), which prohibits, inter alia, discrimination in admission to public facilities on the basis of race, religion or religious-group identification, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, familial status or disability. In addition, the lawsuit is based on violations of the constitutional right to dignity and the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.
Adalah joined the case as a seventh plaintiff, in the belief that it will set a precedent for cases of discrimination against Palestinian citizens in other public places in Israel. In addition to seeking NIS 300,000 in compensation for the plaintiffs' mental suffering, Adalah asked that the respondent publish a public apology in both official languages in at least two newspapers, one national and one local.
According to the lawsuit, the discrimination took place in May 2001, when the six young men -- Bilal Ghanaiem and Mahmoud Bshir from Sakhnin, Zeid Khalifi from Tamra, Mahmoud Masri from Nahef, Atamni Mohammad Mibaayni, and Khalid Rabah from Nazareth -- arrived at Livnon Beach in two cars. The beach's security guard looked at the passengers in the first car; when he realized that they were Arabs he asked them to leave, claiming that the beach was full. After an exchange between the plaintiffs and the guard, the guard admitted that they were being prevented from entering the beach because they are Arabs. The manager of Livnon Beach, Mr. Shlomo Guetta, explained to the six men, in the presence of a police officer who had been called to the scene, that the guard acted in accordance with his instructions. He explained that he does not allow Arab youths to enter the beach unless they are accompanied by their families or their spouses. Mr. Guetta claimed that this policy was in place because of Arab youths' attitudes towards women, and because of the security situation. In a comment to Ha'aretz published on 26 March 2002, Mr. Guetta compared this policy to the Israeli defense establishment's practice of allowing Palestinians from the Occupied Territories into Israel only if they are married. It is worth noting that after speaking with the six men, Mr. Guetta judged that they were nice and agreed to admit them. The plaintiffs refused to enter the beach, and proceeded to file a complaint at a nearby police station.
The plaintiffs claim in the lawsuit that "the prevention of their entrance to the beach based on their nationality badly injured their dignity and caused humiliation and contempt for them as human beings and as Arab citizens of the state. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the conduct of the respondent caused devastation of their self-confidence, and since that event, feelings of isolation and humiliation are still with them." It was also alleged in the lawsuit that "the harsh undermining of the plaintiffs' status, their personalities and their ability to exercise their wills to enjoy themselves in a public place, based on their national affiliation, reinforces the stereotypes against their minority group and sends a clear message that this group is inferior. The principal of non-discrimination based on affiliation to a national group was re-affirmed in the aftermath of the enactment of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty."
The lawsuit contains a comparative legal analysis with regards to non-discrimination based on racial criteria in many countries, including the United States, Canada, Britain, and others. This is the first lawsuit to be filed charging discrimination based on national belonging, pursuant to the Law of Prohibition of Discrimination in Products and Services and in Entry to Entertainment and Public Facilities. The law aims to combat racial discrimination and illegal selective criteria in admission to public places, and allows individual victims of such discrimination to sue for up to NIS 50,000 for anguish, humiliation, and mental suffering caused by breaching the principal of equality, without the need to prove tangible damages.
The respondents have 30 days to submit their response to the lawsuit.
