Return to Jurisfemme Directory
Jurisfemme
Volume 22, No. 2 Summer 2003
ISSN 0835-0892
Return to Jurisfemme Directory |
Jurisfemme |
|
In this issue: Agency and Urgency: an advocacy project on the defense of provocation. The Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act The Live-In Caregiver Program: Inequality under Canada's Immigration System National Consultation on Transgender and Women's Substantive Equality Reaffirming the Indivisibility of Human Rights at the Roundtable on Women and Politics 2003 Custody and Access: an update on Bill C-22 AGENCY AND URGENCY: EMPOWERING STUDENTS Students comment on their involvement in this advocacy project. Advocacy both 'into' and 'as' curriculum, warrants more presence in the classroom. By writing advocacy letters, education becomes less about schooling (read 'disciplining') feminism and more about eliminating assumed barriers between classroom and community. When students rally collectively around social justice issues, the classroom reveals itself as a political site and can be revisioned around the politics of solidarity. Generally I think that multinational corporations are more powerful than governments. However, all that this intervention has set in motion, and the growing number of people involved in it remind me not to dismiss the potential for intervening into government. Not only has this project pressured politicians for a renewed accountability, it has also allowed students to get politically active through a relatively non-threatening vehicle. The dialogue with government is not the only one transpiring as a result of this process. It is, at the same time, a dialogue among feminists some of whom call for abolition and some for reform of the Defence. Both these dialogues query who informs or interrupts government, classroom and feminist agendas. (michelle elle pettis) If someone would have told me that I would be writing an article on the Defence of Provocation for Jurisfemme, and that my Master's Thesis would also be on this controversial section of the Canadian Criminal Code, I would have told them they were crazy! Indeed, until a day late in November of 2002, I had never heard of the Defence. Certainly, I never imagined that it would direct the course of my graduate academic career, and empower and challenge me as a student, a woman and a citizen. I had never written to a politician before, and was cynical, thinking the attempt would be futile. Still, our professor assured us that we would receive some sort of reply from the politicians' offices. When we received the supportive response from Carolyn Bennett, I felt a great sense of unity. Indeed, there were others out there who were also outraged by this section of the Criminal Code. To say I feel empowered and as agent in my life because of this project seems inadequate. It has illuminated the tremendous power of one individual to make change, and the incredible strength of women acting collectively. (Christina J. Hollingshead) Jurisfemme readers are asked to sign the
petition at http://www.petitiononline.com Elizabeth Taylor braved a lecture hall of 350 to tell another one of her Women's Studies classes about this issue: For me, the issue is quite personal because I lived six years of my life in an abusive relationship. I am one of those fortunate women to escape such a relationship alive. I am quite appalled to know that if I were killed, my killer would not face justice. I am a shy person, but I was motivated to bring up this issue in my other classes. I found other women who also live in fear, while their abusers walk around as free as a bird. Men and women need to know that no form of violence is acceptable, whether done in anger or premeditated. To take this project to this next level is both personal and political for me. (Elizabeth Taylor) |
AGENCY AND URGENCY: AN ADVOCACY PROJECT ON THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATIONBy Linda Briskin, Louise Hamelin, Christina J. Hollingshead, michelle elle pettis and Elizabeth TaylorAs a student of Women's Studies, a worker at a shelter for abused women and a black woman who witnessed violence in my life, I believe the Provocation Defence is a blatant injustice to women. Honourable Minister, our beloved country has fought long and hard to establish laws, which recognize a woman as a person. The Defence of Provocation is sending a clear message once more that she is not. (Patricia Peters) Students gave permission to reprint excerpts from their letters. The fact that a 'Defence of Provocation' is enshrined in the Canadian Criminal Code came as a shock to students in my York University Women's Studies class on "Women Organizing". Undoubtedly, the existence of the 'Defence' brings the government and the courts into disrepute in the minds of my students, many of whom are young women. How can they feel that the law will protect them when such an egregious opening exists for men to blame their partners for their own violence and literally to get away with murder? How can they feel that their government supports a woman's autonomy when a woman's desire to leave a marriage can be construed as 'provocation' and used as an excuse for men's rage, violence and murder? Outrage at the 'Defence' offered a vehicle to engage students in political advocacy. Students frequently complain that their university education is not relevant to the 'real' world, and this complaint is one made strongly by Women's Studies students who often feel they should be doing something active to address the inequalities women face. Writing politicians about the 'Defence' as part of a class project both encouraged a sense of political efficacy and helped students define themselves as political agents, both as individuals and as part of a collective. It also challenged the sometimes binary of student and activist, and made permeable the seeming-barriers between and among the community, civil society, government and academy. In preparation for writing the letters, students read newspaper accounts of the violent deaths of Susan Klassen and Donna Stone at the hands of their husbands; they learned how both men invoked the Defence of Provocation and had their sentences dramatically reduced as a result. Students also read a lengthy excerpt from NAWL's April 2000 brief on the Defence: Stop excusing Violence against Women. As a group, we collectively identified some of the main issues; each student then wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon or the Minister for the Status of Women Jean Augustine. Students also sent copies of their letters to NAWL and to MP Carolyn Bennett, who has been instrumental in setting up an all-party caucus of women from the House and the Senate. WHITE SPACE SPEAKS Much to their surprise, the students eventually received replies to the letters mailed in November 2002. "White space speaks. So does evasiveness. So does silence. The government has met our letters with all three and little else. The class wrote 27 letters on November 25. With the exception of an encouraging reply from MP Carolyn Bennett, contact for the fledgling All-Party Women's Caucus, we have yet to receive acceptable responses. After four months, and several follow up emails and calls to his office, the Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon finally responded. Among the silences, there is also clutter. In a response dated, 10 January 2003, the Honourable Jean Augustine, Minister for the Status of Women, wrote, 'You may know that the Defence of Provocation is currently under review by the Department of Justice to ensure it is considered in its full legal and social context.' However, Greg Yost, counsel at Justice maintained that there has been no reference to the issue since March 1999. In February 2003, Joanne Klineberg of the Department of Justice confirmed, by email, that the Defence is not under review. In a letter dated 26 March, Augustine's office finally replied to our written requests for clarification and our entreaties that as Minister for the Status of Women, she take up this issue: "My officials have been in contact with the Department of Justice, and we understand that the Department continues to examine the Defence. Any legislative action, however, falls within the purview of the Minister of Justice. Please be assured that I will continue to work with the Minister of Justice and my other Cabinet colleagues to identify areas where we can work together to eliminate violence against women." Cauchon's letter of March 31, 2003 referred to his commitment "to ensuring that the law reflects modern values and works fairly for all Canadians" and "reconciling society's need for denunciation and punishment of intentional killings and the objective of providing some measure of compassion to accused persons in appropriate circumstances." He did not address the concerns about women's safety raised in our letters; in fact, he made no reference to gender at all. Despite the limits, this correspondence did offer more than the two sentences from Prime Minister Jean Chretien's office. "Please be assured", his Executive Correspondence Officer told us, "that your comments have been given careful consideration." Email queries asking for clarification have not received replies. More encouragingly however, MP Carolyn Bennett responded promptly by 17 December 2002. She attached a copy of a letter she had sent to all women MPs and Senators in which she said, "These young women point out this section of the Code is archaic and a remnant of a time when honour killings were acceptable in law. This loophole has allowed men to argue in court, upon charges of murder, that their female partners provoked them... This is unacceptable! I urge you to push this issue within your own caucuses." Evidently, writing letters to MPs requires emails, phone calls, and time, a long process that calls attention to the barriers to accessible and accountable politics. (michelle elle pettis) AGENCY-BASED LEARNING This project is an example of what I call agency-based learning. Such a pedagogical approach helps to re-position activism from a marginal to a mainstream activity and encourages students to understand and experience themselves as political actors. For those students who have internalized negative stereotypes of feminists, activists and organizing, this represents an important shift. This kind of project also challenges students' political pessimism; a not insignificant achievement in the current context where equity gains are under serious attack and demoralization is often the norm. Courses in Women's Studies, which focus on women's experience may inadvertently encourage a view of women as victims, and as a result heighten students' sense of powerlessness. As students understand the discrimination and violence women face, many feel discouraged and disempowered. Integrating a practice of advocacy into Women's Studies classrooms balances the reality of women's victimization against the practice of women as agents. Women have a long and remarkable history of organizing to resist oppression, expand their rights as women and citizens, protect their families and communities, defend traditional values, and change their societies. They have organized in, through and sometimes against revolutionary, nationalist and transnational movements, unions, autonomous women's movements and mainstream political institutions; states, schools, workplaces, communities, and religious institutions; public and private spaces; and issues and identities. I encourage teachers to include agency-based projects in their classrooms and to become part of this long tradition of organizing. At the same time, I hope that community-based feminist organizations will reach out to the large numbers of women in Women's Studies programs across Canada, and help bridge the barriers of community and academy. For more information about the course on Women Organizing (including the instructions for this "Advocacy Project"), see www.arts.yorku.ca/sosc/lbriskin/courses/3125/index.html. See also Briskin "Women's Organizing: A Gateway to a New Approach for Women's Studies." Atlantis, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2002, pp. 78-91. Linda Briskin is a Professor in the Social Science Division and the School of Women's Studies at York University. She has published widely on women and unions, community-based women's organizing and inclusive pedagogies. She has both an activist and scholarly interest in these areas. Louise Hamelin is a third-year Women's Studies major at York University who hopes to study law in the future. Christina J. Hollingshead will graduate cum laude with her Specialized Honours Degree in psychology from York University in 2003. She intends to complete her Master's Degree in Interdisciplinary Studies, her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, attend Osgoode Hall Law School, and become a Judge in the Criminal Courts. michelle elle pettis is a fourth year womyn's studies and English major interested in the politics of the classroom and turned on by peace-ing together art activism. Elizabeth Taylor is a second year Women's Studies major at York University. She plans to complete a Bachelor of Social Work and then go to graduate school. |
|
Return to top Reproduction of articles from this site is permitted, provided that the source is cited. |
Same-Sex HearingsBy Margaret DenikeAt the hearings held in Sudbury on April 9, 2003, NAWL appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to present our views on the question of whether the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages. We urged the committee members not to be swayed by political and social prejudice and stereotyping born of religious dogma and right-wing ideology, and to keep in mind their obligations as law makers, to ensure that laws in this area reflect the egalitarian values and human rights enshrined in our constitution, including the obligation to ensure that all persons enjoy equal recognition at law and the obligation to advance the equality rights of historically disadvantaged groups, such as lesbians, bisexual and transgendered women. We went to the hearings prepared to talk about the importance of applying basic human rights principles of gender equality, respect for human dignity, and the freedom to make fundamental choices about adult personal relationships. We were gravely disappointed that the members of the Standing Committee refused to engage in a discussion of such principles, or of their applicability to questions regarding the state's role in recognizing and supporting adult personal relations, including the extension of marriage to same-sex couples and the implications of alternative regimes, such as Registered Domestic Partnerships. Indeed, certain Committee members were quick to respond with uninformed, irrelevant and blatantly homophobic questions and claims that had nothing to do with the principles we were asking them to consider and to apply. They resorted to degrading myths and stereotypes, as was evident in the first comments and questions to follow our presentation, posed by Chuck Cadman, MP (Alliance): in urging the government to recognize relationships other than conjugal heterosexual unions, were we not urging the supporting of polygamy? If gays were allowed to marry, what would we suggest be done about the problems of incest that it would give rise to? If laws are not based on morality, what should they be based on? Such comments and questions effectively diverted attention away from a substantive dialogue about the state's role in marriage, and about the possibility of alternative regimes for recognizing and supporting adult personal relationships. The hearings were reduced to a forum for encouraging and reinforcing the expression of fear and hatred toward sexual minorities. From the outset, the organizers seemed to go out of their way to encourage such views. In fact, in each city where the hearings were conducted, the panels were set up to include representation from what the organizers imagined to be the "two sides" of the debates concerning same-sex marriage: individuals representing conservative, religious groups that virulently oppose granting any rights to gays and lesbians were seated on panels with those representing gay and lesbian support groups and services and women's equality-seeking groups. NAWL was made to participate alongside individuals who spoke of so-called biblical "truths" about the sin of homosexuality, which was said to be accountable for the proliferation of sex crimes and sexually transmitted diseases. The consultations were made into a circus that staged a contest between conflicting rights and interests of equality and religious beliefs, even though such beliefs had nothing to do with the mandate of the Committee. Such antics provide us with little reason to think that the Committee members will be able to fulfill their constitutional obligations as lawmakers to promote equality rights for vulnerable groups and to avoid being swayed by the very forms of prejudice that some Committee members actively welcomed from participants. Moreover we have little faith in the Committee's ability to insist that such degrading stereotypical beliefs have no place in law or public policy, especially to the extent they are inconsistent with fundamental human rights principles. Margaret Denike is an assistant professor and coordinator of the Program in Gender Equality and Social Justice at Nipissing University in North Bay. Formerly a member of the NSC, she is a member of the NAWL subcommittee for Lesbian Rights issues. |
|
Return to top Reproduction of articles from this site is permitted, provided that the source is cited. |
The Impact of the Anti-Terrorism ActBy Anu BoseIn the aftermath of the horrifying events of 9/11, the government of
Canada introduced Bill C-36. It was far-reaching: an omnibus bill,
cobbled together in haste while the country was still in a state of shock
and crisis, bordering on hysteria. As Calvin White (Ottawa Citizen, Oct.
15/01) wrote, Canada was shocked to the core and was "now desperate to
regain control". Many saw the legislation as draconian, and it roused the civil rights and immigrant communities, who had grown complacent since the passage of the Charter. The National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) and the National Organisation of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada (NOIVMWC) were perhaps the only two all-women's groups that appeared before the House and Senate Standing Committees to speak against Bill C-36. NAWL and NOIVMWC can take some credit for having advocated for the 'sunset' clause, which was eventually written into the Anti-Terrorism Act. Both NAWL and NOIVMWC had long felt there was a need to systematically investigate the impact the legislation had on the lives of Muslim and South Asian women, and on Arabic speakers. The Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW) had also expressed an interest in mounting such a study. All three groups had considerable anecdotal evidence about the fear and anxiety that such legislation had caused for the women within these communities. Fortunately, Status of Women Canada (SWC) issued a call in September 2002 for proposals on "Engendering the Human Security Agenda", under its Policy Research Fund. NOIVMWC, CRIAW and NAWL met and made a joint proposal to SWC. The proposal was submitted in late November 2002, accepted in early 2003 and the contract was finalized on April 24, 2003. CRIAW is to handle the project finances, NOIVMWC the project administration and NAWL will provide the legal expertise. The draft final report has to be delivered to SWC by March 30, 2004. The Research To the best of our knowledge, there has been little gender or diversity analysis of the national security agenda. However, there is an excellent academic analysis of the Anti-Terrorism Act by three members of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law (R.J. Daniels, P. Maclem and K. Roach, eds., The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill (Toronto: U of T Press, 2001)). Our study will be unique, in that it proposes to use an intersectional race, gender and class approach, employing participatory research techniques to assess the impact of national security policies on Muslim and non-Muslim women of various ethnic origins encompassing both Anglophone and Francophone communities. The research project has both short and long-term objectives. In the short-term, the emphasis is on including racialized women as stakeholders in the policy dialogue on national security. This is commensurate with the Government of Canada's commitment to citizen participation in the governmental policy process, as expressed in the Accord signed with the Voluntary Sector in 2001. In the long term, the project partners anticipate the development of peace and security policy priorities that will not have an adverse impact on women especially, racialized women. We believe that our work is timely and has a strong empirical basis, which will serve as a valuable source of gender-based information for policy makers, researchers and other equality-seeking organisations on the effects of security agenda. In addition, it will provide concrete recommendations, concerning policy and legislative changes, formulated by women from the communities most affected. Moreover, we hope that the research results will help Canada fulfil its obligations to a meaningful gender-based analysis of legalization and policies as well as meet its obligations to implement Security Council resolution 1325 (UN Security Council Resolution 1325 deals with a number of items, including women and peace building/peacekeeping. It states, in part, that gender needs to be a priority in peacekeeping missions, particularly in post-conflict situations.). Given the constraints of time and resources, the research will be confined to a sample of 150 women (Muslim women, women of Arab origin, women who have been targeted because of appearance) from three major urban centres and one semi-rural area. The sample will be chosen to ensure that there are appropriate classifications: one focusing on the ethnic/religious/linguistic mix, a second incorporating Canadian born, immigrant and refugee women and a third focussing on socio-economic characteristics, including age and income. It is anticipated that the findings will determine whether there is a consistent national picture, or if there are substantial differences based on location and spatial concentration. Next Steps A Steering Committee consisting of the executive directors of NAWL, NOIVMWC and CRIAW, one board member from each of the three organisations and the principal researchers will provide overall guidance to the study. We have also started to identify potential paid researchers and groups in Toronto, Montreal and Calgary who may be interested in hosting the focus groups. Finally, we have set a tentative date of June 20-22, 2003 for a Steering Committee meeting in Ottawa to further develop the research design. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact Anu Bose at anubose@noivmwc.org. Anu Bose is the executive director of NOIVMWC; she holds a PhD in Development Administration from the University of Birmingham, UK. |
|
Return to top Reproduction of articles from this site is permitted, provided that the source is cited. |
THE LIVE-IN CAREGIVER PROGRAM: INEQUALITY UNDER CANADA'S IMMIGRATION SYSTEMBy Tami FriesenThe Live-in Caregiver Program (LCP) is a specialized program of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which admits participants to Canada as temporary workers for up to three years. In exchange for completing 24 months of care giving work for children, the elderly, or the disabled in a private household within three years of arriving in Canada, LCP participants are eligible to apply for permanent residence. Pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations, participants must live in their employers' homes and are only allowed to work for the one employer named on their work permit. Working for another employer or living outside of their employer's home can result in a participant's removal from Canada. Participants can change employers, but only after receiving a new work permit through a lengthy bureaucratic process, which can take several months. See http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/caregiver/index.html for details on the LCP. While participants benefit from the opportunity to obtain permanent residence, the LCP fails to safeguard live-in caregivers from unfair and discriminatory treatment. A large majority of participants are women of colour. The onerous conditions of the LCP - temporary status, mandatory live-in requirement, employer-specific work permit, and 24-month requirement - violate the fundamental rights of women and create vulnerability to economic, physical, sexual and psychological abuse. In fear of deportation, not being able to qualify for permanent residence, and of losing their home and income, caregivers are reluctant to change employers or lodge a complaint and often endure unbearable working and living conditions. Women under the LCP are often underpaid, work excessive hours, experience violations of privacy, and receive inadequate food and accommodation. Caregivers may also experience social isolation, family separation and lack of awareness of their employment rights. The unfair treatment and inequality inherent in the LCP is based on gender, race and class. The federal government's rationale for the LCP is that there is a shortage of Canadians or permanent residents to fill the need for live-in care work. Arguably, the poor working conditions, low pay, and stigma attached to domestic work helps to perpetuate this labour shortage. In addition, Canada's immigration selection criteria (the "point system" for independent immigrants) emphasize higher education and labour market participation in male-dominated occupations and fail to recognize the economic disadvantage of women and the value of domestic work. Further, caregivers historically entered Canada with permanent resident status. When one examines the various caregiver immigration schemes over the past century, it becomes apparent that caregivers' legal status and rights in Canada began to deteriorate as caregivers' place of origin changed from Britain and other European countries to the Caribbean and the Philippines. In an effort to ameliorate the unfair treatment of caregivers, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations introduced the requirement of an employment contract for caregivers and their employers. The government's intent was to provide the fairest working arrangement for both parties and to create a clear understanding of expectations. However, an employment contract alone is insufficient to prevent exploitation of caregivers or to ensure clear avenues of assistance for caregivers. A contract's effectiveness requires an ability to negotiate contractual terms and strong enforcement mechanisms, both of which are lacking for live-in caregivers. There is a large power imbalance in the employer-employee relationship due to the restrictive conditions of the LCP, making fair negotiation a practical impossibility. Further, the federal government, despite having introduced the contract requirement, takes no responsibility for intervention or enforcement because the regulation of working conditions falls within the purview of provincial governments. Most provinces provide a complaint-driven enforcement model which, coupled with cutbacks to provincial employment standards, makes it especially difficult for live-in caregivers to access justice. Community groups have long called for changes to the LCP to lessen these inequities, including granting caregivers permanent residence on arrival, abolishing the live-in requirement, providing caregivers with occupation-specific and not employer-specific work permits, decreasing the work requirement to one year, and a pro-active monitoring system of employers and employment conditions. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recently heard these calls. In its draft report following its review of Canada's 5th report on compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (online at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/28sess.htm), the Committee singled out the LCP, expressing its concern with caregivers' temporary status and the live-in requirement, and stating:
It is clear that the LCP, in its current form, is flawed and inequitable. Canada's immigration evaluation system requires modification to recognize the value of domestic work, the significant and unique contributions LCP participants make to Canadian society, and the human dignity of women. For more information, please the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association email at wcdwa@vcn.bc.ca. Tami Friesen is a former Advocate and current Policy Developer at the West Coast Domestic Workers' Association. West Coast Domestic Workers' Association is a non-governmental organization in Vancouver, which has been providing outreach, education and legal assistance to live-in caregivers for over 15 years. |
|
Return to top Reproduction of articles from this site is permitted, provided that the source is cited. |
NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON TRANSGENDER AND WOMEN'S SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITYBy cj roweNAWL organized a national consultation on transgender and women's substantive equality rights, held in Ottawa on February 22 and 23, 2003. The consultation drew representatives from rape crisis centres, women's equality-seeking groups, unions, government, transgender and transsexual (trans) advocates, and other interested individuals from across Canada. The specific objective for the weekend was to lay a foundation for the development of feminist and egalitarian approaches to law reform, litigation, and social policy on trans rights that respect and promote the substantive equality rights of all women. The consultation grew out of debates around the extension of human rights protection to trans persons and the inclusion of transsexual women in "women only spaces." These debates have engaged feminists and women's equality-seeking groups over the past few years and are at the heart of Nixon v. Vancouver Rape Relief Society ([2002] B.C.H.R.T. 1, online at http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/popt/decisions/2002_reason_for_decision.htm) which is currently before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on judicial review. Kimberly Nixon was turned away after seeking to volunteer as a peer counsellor at Vancouver Rape Relief in 1995. The case has polarized various members of the feminist community and, in some circles, has created a dynamic of 'us versus them' between women's groups and trans communities. During the course of the consultation, it became apparent that, beyond issues of inclusion and accommodation, there are many grave human rights violations tearing up the lives of many women and trans people, and that there is a need for effective human rights protection. It also became clear that our communities have many common goals and should strive to build coalitions and work towards human rights that will benefit all women. Like many stigmatized groups of women, transgender and transsexual people are struggling to meet the most basic safety needs in day-to-day life. Specific and urgent concerns include, but are not limited to: access to social services such as homeless shelters, rape crisis centres, and medical clinics; access to education; access to public and private health benefits; freedom from violence motivated by hatred, including sexual assault; fear of repercussion or reprisal in retaliation for asserting one's ordinary rights, such as speaking out in public; chronic unemployment or under-employment; abusive treatment by law enforcement personnel; public humiliation, derision, ridicule, marginalization and exclusion; and denial of access to public accommodations such as shops, restaurants, washrooms, and public transportation. Because trans people are subject to systemic discrimination and continue to be denied the basic human rights supposedly granted to 'all individuals,' the possibility of achieving full personhood or full benefit of the law-the possibility of social equality-requires substantial social and legal reform. The question is not whether trans persons should be granted rights and freedoms, be they to social services, employment and medical care, but how? With respect to potential law reform initiatives, some of the suggestions that were brought forward during the consultation include: adding "gender identity" to federal, provincial and territorial human rights codes; seeking legislation that would require all public spaces to provide single stall unisex washrooms; and eliminating the requirement that one's sex be designated on personal ID cards. cj rowe is the consultation coordinator and is a member of the Lesbian Working Group and the Working Group on Trans Issues. |
|
Return to top Reproduction of articles from this site is permitted, provided that the source is cited. |
Reaffirming the Indivisibility of Human Rights at the Roundtable on Women and Politics 2003By Jackie SteeleSupported by an Advisory Committee of activists and academics with diverse
experiences and expertise, the National Association of Women and the Law
convened, on March 22-23, a dialogue with 40 women for its Roundtable
on Women and Politics 2003 at the symbolic location of Centre Block, Parliament
Hill. Participants were drawn from groups comprising the Canadian Committee
for the World March of Women, as well as provincial organizations who
are mobilizing specifically on the issues of women's political representation.
Three main themes guided the discussions of the Roundtable: The Context of War As a backdrop to our discussions, the war on Iraq highlighted women's experiences of oppression, and was connected both theoretically and practically to the ways in which the participants understood formal politics and the power to oppress, coerce and dominate "the other" through hierarchical relationships of inequality both at the international, national, and local level. By signing the international trade and investment agreements, over the last two decades of neo-liberal dominance the Canadian state has proactively chosen to abdicate its responsibility and power to protect the well-being of Canadian citizens. As such, it represents a severely diminished locus of authority and site of social transformation in the 21st century. With the environmental, anti-globalization, feminist, and social justice movements mobilizing for peace worldwide, many asserted a preference for grassroots organizing, coalition-based mobilizing by women in civil society, and massive demonstrations of solidarity, as the most effective means of communicating with governments. Consequently, it was seen as crucial that we make changes in the agenda to ensure that our voices were present at the Peace Rally on Parliament Hill on Saturday, March 23rd, 2003. Highlights of the Roundtable Discussions Throughout the Roundtable discussions and indeed in the last strategizing session, it became clear that women understood the possibility for meaningful political participation as deeply connected to the struggles of the most marginalized women in Canada. Participants highlighted the intersecting oppressions of colonialism, racism, patriarchy, capitalism, and other forms of social disadvantage, as they contribute to limit the experience and meaning of "citizenship" and "political participation" to a subsistence level for too many women. A fundamental disillusionment with electoral politics was in evidence, as it consistently works to only advance the representation of middle/upper class, white men, and similarly situated women. Unless electoral reform could cause a fundamental re-distribution of power, it was not seen an issue that could be politically mobilizing, nor serve as a coalition-building issue for the autonomous women's movement at this point in time. The participants were focused on raising the profile of the highly political issues of poverty, racism, colonization, disempowerment, violence against women, disability, heterosexism, and other oppressions that too many women experience in the absence of a genuine commitment by the Canadian government to uphold the rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The overwhelming analysis of electoral politics was that political empowerment cannot be addressed in a void. Regardless of possible future changes to the electoral system, one of the primary concerns of the women at the Roundtable was that governments in Canada understand and commit to upholding the indivisibility of social, cultural, economic, civil, and political rights, if they are serious about creating the conditions for meaningful "political participation". Until this happens, the weak level of engagement by the vast majority of the population will likely persist, and the under-representation of their interests and realities in the House of Commons, provincial legislatures, and municipal councils will continue to exacerbate social inequality and reinforce the current crisis in political legitimacy. Party elites seemed to be ignorant of the need to include marginalized voices as a means of grounding their party's policy commitments. Given the kinds of hierarchical and exclusionary practices of formal politics, many women do not wish to invest their time, and thereby legitimate a system that functions on such undemocratic, racist, and patriarchal assumptions. Rather, participants were committed to investing in a grounded sphere of political activism that supports the representation of authentic voices for marginalized communities of women in Canada. Next Steps Over the course of the weekend, our discussions led us towards a broad consensus on the need for a political campaign for a "dignified guaranteed income for all". Not only would this allow us to raise the very political nature of poverty in Canada, but moreover, a dignified guaranteed income would be an effective strategy for combating the oppressive situations affecting the most marginalized women in Canada. Jackie F.P. Steele was Researcher/coordinator for the Roundtable Project; she looks forward to beginning her doctoral studies on gender-equitable governance at the University of Ottawa in September. |
|
Return to top Reproduction of articles from this site is permitted, provided that the source is cited. |
Custody and Access: an update on Bill C-22By Andrée CotéOn February 2003, Bill C-22, An Act Amending the Divorce Act was debated in the Second Reading in the House of Commons, and sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In March, the Committee invited the Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon to present the Bill. He faced tough questions from the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc and the NDP on why he had decided to abandon the maximum contact presumption and why he did not retain the mandatory shared parenting option that was lobbied for by the fathers' rights groups. It was particularly disappointing to see the lack of a gender analysis by the Bloc and the NDP Committee members, who showed much less understanding of the issues than the Status of Women critics in their parties. From the questions raised during that session, it is clear that Bill C-22 will face many criticisms, including from the Liberal ranks. While the Committee Chair had informed NAWL that the hearings on the Bill would start in May, the Committee has decided to wait until next fall. After consulting different provincial and regional networks in Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Québec, NAWL has prepared a template brief on Bill C-22. We have also been consulting different networks of women of colour to discuss the impact of the proposed changes to the best interest of the child test on women from racialized communities, and on First Nations women. The brief should be ready by the end of June and will be posted on NAWL's Web site. We invite women's equality-seeking organizations to either endorse NAWL's brief, or to use it to tailor their own submissions to the Standing Committee. If you want to make a presentation to the Standing Committee you must write to: Patrice Martin, Clerk Andrée Coté is NAWL's director of Legislation and Law Reform. |
|
Return to top Reproduction of articles from this site is permitted, provided that the source is cited. |
JURISFEMMEJURISFEMME Volume 22, No. 2 Summer 2003 Jurisfemme is a publication of the NAWL is a national non-profit women's organization which promotes the equality rights of women through legal education, research and law reform advocacy. We recognize that each woman's experience of inequality is unique due to systemic discrimination related to race, class, sexual orientation, disability, age, language and other factors. In our view, a just and equal society is one which values diversity and is inclusive of it. We are committed to working collectively and in coalition with other groups to dismantle barriers to all women's equality. Editors Jurisfemme Co-ordinator Publication Co-ordinator Contributions of articles, notices and resource information are encouraged.
We reserve the right to edit submissions. NAWL Staff and National Steering Committee National Steering Committee Regional Representatives |
