10.11.2014 Views

Fredrika Shavit v. Rishon Lezion Jewish Burial Society

Fredrika Shavit v. Rishon Lezion Jewish Burial Society

Fredrika Shavit v. Rishon Lezion Jewish Burial Society

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

to be given an alternative civilian burial bears the burden of making sure<br />

this desire is expressed. It can be assumed that if close family members<br />

say that this was indeed the will of the deceased, those wishes should be<br />

respected.<br />

The Alternative <strong>Burial</strong> Law is a framework law: a law that<br />

acknowledges fundamental rights and outlines the principles of their<br />

implementation in the future by the individual appointed to the task. That<br />

is its charm. That is also its hindrance.<br />

8. The authorities did not hasten to implement the law. Thus, for<br />

example, even though the law was passed on March 21, 1996, no<br />

regulations were instated for two and a half years until the Right to<br />

Alternative Civilian <strong>Burial</strong> Regulations (Licensing <strong>Burial</strong> Cooperatives<br />

and Establishing <strong>Burial</strong> Procedures) was published on December 17,<br />

1998, to be implemented 30 days later. It is clear that these regulations<br />

were only instated following a petition brought before the High Court of<br />

Justice discussed below.<br />

This was the course of events: the Minister of Religious Affairs<br />

dragged his feet in creating regulations for the implementation of the<br />

Alternative <strong>Burial</strong> Law, and since he did not designate – as was his<br />

obligation under section 4(a) of the law – sites for alternative civilian<br />

cemeteries, MKs David Zucker and Binyamin Temkin – the initiators of<br />

the law – and with them Mr. Erez Epstein, petitioned the High Court of<br />

Justice, requesting that it order the Minister of Religious Affairs to fulfill<br />

the tasks assigned to him by the law. This petition (HCJ 619/97) was<br />

brought before the Court on January 27, 1997 – some ten months after the<br />

law went into effect – and it is still pending today. Almost two years after<br />

the petition was filed, the Minister of Religious Affairs established those<br />

regulations mentioned above, and in doing so, one of the requests of the<br />

petitioners was addressed. Their other request – regarding the designation<br />

of sites for alternative burial – is yet to be addressed, despite certain<br />

actions taken towards the implementation of the law.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!