Meital Pinto
Dr. Meital Pinto is a senior lecturer at the Zefat Academic College School of Law, and the Ono Academic College School of Law, Israel. She is also a teaching fellow at the Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University in Jerusalem (teaching a seminar on Law and Feminism).
Dr. Pinto was an Israel Institute visiting scholar (2022) at the
Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality and Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago.. Dr. Pinto served as a teaching fellow at Tel-Aviv University (teaching constitutional law for first year LL.B students) from 2017-2020.
Meital has an S.J.D. (2009) and an LL.M. (2005) from University of Toronto, and LL.B degree (2003) in Law and Government from Reichman University (IDC) Herzliya, Israel (Magna cum Laude). Prior to her graduate studies Meital served as a law clerk to Justice Asher Grunis of the Israeli Supreme Court, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel.
Meital teaches in the fields of Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Law and Gender, and Multiculturalism.
Meital’s research focuses on the issues of shaming, discrimination, and minority rights within multicultural societies (especially language rights and religious freedom), including rights of minorities within minorities.
Among her recent publications are: “Arbitrariness as Discrimination” 34(2) The Canadian Journal Of Law And Jurisprudence 391-415 (2021)"; “The Impact of the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People on the Status of the Arabic Language in Israel” 30 (1) Minnesota Journal of International Law 1( 2020); “Gender Quotas and the Parity Paradigm in Israel” in Women And Legal Pluralism: Extending Parity Governance? (Oxford University Press, 2018); "The Right to Culture, the Right to Dispute, and the Right to Exclude: A New Perspective on Minorities within Minorities" 28 RATIO JURIS 521-539 (2015); "Taking Language Rights Seriously" 25 KING'S LAW JOURNAL (Hart Publishing) 231-254 (2014); "Philosophy of Language Policy" in Bernard Spolsky ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy 37-58 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) (With Denise Réaume); "What Are Offences to Feelings Really about? A New Regulative Principle for the Multicultural Era, 30(4) OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 695 (2010); “On the Intrinsic Value of Arabic in Israel - Challenging Kymlicka on Language Rights” 20(1) THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & JURISPRUDENCE 143-172 (2007).
Phone: 972-52-8882873
Dr. Pinto was an Israel Institute visiting scholar (2022) at the
Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality and Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at the University of Chicago.. Dr. Pinto served as a teaching fellow at Tel-Aviv University (teaching constitutional law for first year LL.B students) from 2017-2020.
Meital has an S.J.D. (2009) and an LL.M. (2005) from University of Toronto, and LL.B degree (2003) in Law and Government from Reichman University (IDC) Herzliya, Israel (Magna cum Laude). Prior to her graduate studies Meital served as a law clerk to Justice Asher Grunis of the Israeli Supreme Court, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel.
Meital teaches in the fields of Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Law and Gender, and Multiculturalism.
Meital’s research focuses on the issues of shaming, discrimination, and minority rights within multicultural societies (especially language rights and religious freedom), including rights of minorities within minorities.
Among her recent publications are: “Arbitrariness as Discrimination” 34(2) The Canadian Journal Of Law And Jurisprudence 391-415 (2021)"; “The Impact of the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish People on the Status of the Arabic Language in Israel” 30 (1) Minnesota Journal of International Law 1( 2020); “Gender Quotas and the Parity Paradigm in Israel” in Women And Legal Pluralism: Extending Parity Governance? (Oxford University Press, 2018); "The Right to Culture, the Right to Dispute, and the Right to Exclude: A New Perspective on Minorities within Minorities" 28 RATIO JURIS 521-539 (2015); "Taking Language Rights Seriously" 25 KING'S LAW JOURNAL (Hart Publishing) 231-254 (2014); "Philosophy of Language Policy" in Bernard Spolsky ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy 37-58 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) (With Denise Réaume); "What Are Offences to Feelings Really about? A New Regulative Principle for the Multicultural Era, 30(4) OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 695 (2010); “On the Intrinsic Value of Arabic in Israel - Challenging Kymlicka on Language Rights” 20(1) THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF LAW & JURISPRUDENCE 143-172 (2007).
Phone: 972-52-8882873
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (17)
Uploads
Papers by Meital Pinto
The article presents two main arguments. First, to explain their perceived threat, it divides group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority into two categories: (1) group rights manifested in a space shared by Jews and Arab-Palestinians, and (2) group rights manifested in a space in which almost exclusively Arab-Palestinians reside. Employing this distinction, the article argues that when group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority are exercised in a space shared by Jews and Arab-Palestinians, Jews are more likely to resist the rights because they are usually perceived as threatening Israel’s Jewish character. However, when group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority are manifested in a space shared almost exclusively by Arab-Palestinians, group rights are much less controversial among the Jewish majority.
The article’s second argument draws a connection between Israeli Jews’ common fear of group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority when the groups share common spaces, and the geographic separation between Arab-Palestinians and Jews in the issue of housing and settlement. The fact that most Jews in Israel are reluctant to live in a common geographic space with Arab-Palestinians supports the article’s first argument, which suggests that Israeli Jews perceive group rights as controversial by the Jewish public only when they threaten Jewish dominance over Israel’s symbolic and geographic space. When Arab-Palestinians disrupt the traditional order by moving to mixed cities or communities mostly inhabited by Jews, they are considered threats to the Jewish character of the public space. The same is true for group rights. When group rights extend beyond the specific geographic realm designated for Arab-Palestinian citizens and penetrate the symbolic and geographic domains common to Israeli citizens, they are perceived as a threat to Jewish dominance in Israel and to Israel’s Jewish character.
The Israeli case study suggests that space matters. Discussions of group rights should consider where the rights are manifested, since their proximity to the majority population adds a significant dimension to the analysis.
The article presents two main arguments. First, to explain their perceived threat, it divides group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority into two categories: (1) group rights manifested in a space shared by Jews and Arab-Palestinians, and (2) group rights manifested in a space in which almost exclusively Arab-Palestinians reside. Employing this distinction, the article argues that when group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority are exercised in a space shared by Jews and Arab-Palestinians, Jews are more likely to resist the rights because they are usually perceived as threatening Israel’s Jewish character. However, when group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority are manifested in a space shared almost exclusively by Arab-Palestinians, group rights are much less controversial among the Jewish majority.
The article’s second argument draws a connection between Israeli Jews’ common fear of group rights for the Arab-Palestinian minority when the groups share common spaces, and the geographic separation between Arab-Palestinians and Jews in the issue of housing and settlement. The fact that most Jews in Israel are reluctant to live in a common geographic space with Arab-Palestinians supports the article’s first argument, which suggests that Israeli Jews perceive group rights as controversial by the Jewish public only when they threaten Jewish dominance over Israel’s symbolic and geographic space. When Arab-Palestinians disrupt the traditional order by moving to mixed cities or communities mostly inhabited by Jews, they are considered threats to the Jewish character of the public space. The same is true for group rights. When group rights extend beyond the specific geographic realm designated for Arab-Palestinian citizens and penetrate the symbolic and geographic domains common to Israeli citizens, they are perceived as a threat to Jewish dominance in Israel and to Israel’s Jewish character.
The Israeli case study suggests that space matters. Discussions of group rights should consider where the rights are manifested, since their proximity to the majority population adds a significant dimension to the analysis.
I will argue that in order to answer this question, a distinction should be drawn between the non-territorial group rights and the semi-territorial group rights that protect Palestinian-Arab minority culture. When group rights that protect the Palestinian-Arab minority’s culture are exercised in a non-territorial sphere, in a space which is shared by both Jews and Palestinian-Arabs, Jews are more likely to resist them. However, when group rights that protect the Palestinian-Arab minority’s culture are limited to a specific semi-territory, such as schools in which the teaching language is Arabic, or Sharia courts that bind only Muslims, they tend to be much less controversial.
The best example of non-territorial group rights relates to comprehensive language rights. That is, language rights that make Arabic visible in public spaces common to both Jews and Arabs, such as streets, roads, bus stops, municipal symbols, government websites and trains.
In contrast to the prevailing opinion among Israeli Jews, I will stress that not only do non-territorial group rights not represent a risk to Israel’s Jewish character, but that they also strengthen Israel’s democratic character. Comprehensive language rights for the Palestinian-Arab minority, for example, have never risked the dominant status of Hebrew. They therefore do not pose any risk to Israel’s Jewish character. On the positive side, comprehensive language rights for the Palestinian-Arab minority have the potential to reinforce Israel’s democratic character. This is because comprehensive language rights enhance the civic status of Palestinian-Arabs in Israel, which is currently vulnerable. They thus have the potential to mitigate Arabs’ exclusion from the Israeli public sphere.
The chapter addresses arguments that may explain why a legal definition of shaming has not yet emerged, and puts forward a nuanced legal definition of shaming: shaming takes place when a shamer deliberately disseminates information, which even if true, is likely to harm the reputation of the shamee whom this information concerns before a public relevant to her, and/or embarrass or discomfort her. Shamer may expose the information by using different means or platforms. Shamer may expose the information for various reasons and purposes. The means and purposes of shaming differ from one case to another. They also influence its effects and consequences.
The definition the chapter proposes allows the legal audience to explore the elements the authors find common to all practices referred to as 'shaming' in public debates, as well as elements that differ between contexts, layers, and purposes of shaming.
Keywords: Shaming, Legal Definition of Shaming, History of Shaming.