From the category archives:

Advocacy

Please help save the Toronto Women’s Bookstore!

by Veronica on December 20, 2009 · 0 comments

The Toronto Women’s Bookstore needs your help! The 36-year-old non-profit, feminist bookstore, which is committed to anti-oppression, risks having to close its doors if it doesn’t raise $40,000 by January. The store has issued a letter to the community asking for donations so that it can remain afloat while the current managers and staff take time to devise strategies to make the store more sustainable.

For those of you who are not familiar with the Toronto Women’s Bookstore, it’s more than just a bookstore. The TWB offers workshops, courses, readings, and other events that foster a sense of community. It is an organization that offers a safe space where women of colour, aboriginals, queer people, transgendered individuals and many others can find books and community resources. Interested in how privilege operates within our society? The TWB has offered a course called “Out of the Ivory Tower and Into the Community: Unpacking and Unlearning Privilege.” Ever wanted to learn some hot burlesque moves? The bookstore has a course in that, too.

And, in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s been a serious decline in women’s bookstores (and independent bookstores) worldwide over the past 15 years. In 1994, 125 women’s bookstores existed across the globe. Wanna know how many there are now? A meagre 21.

So, please, pretty please, if you’ve got a few extra dollars in your wallet, make a donation to the Toronto Women’s Bookstore. You can do it in person at the store, or visit their website and make a donation via PayPal. And, if you need some more convincing, you can find interesting facts, details, history and information here, here, and here.

Tagged as: books, women

{ 0 comments }

Canadians, we need to tell Harper NOW that enough is enough

by Anastasia on December 17, 2009 · 0 comments

in Advocacy

The Copenhagen meeting is almost over. We need to put pressure on Stephen Harper to quit screwing around and pandering to the interests of Alberta oil. Avaaz, a reputable organization, has organized a petition and is aiming to get 500,000 people to sign it. Please–we’ve got to try to do something before Canada completely embarrasses itself and Harper is responsible for developed countries doing little to fight climate change.

{ 0 comments }

Ask the Lady Lawyer! This week: Equal Marriage…Forever?

by Tannis on September 24, 2009 · 0 comments

in Advocacy

Every Thursday, Confabulous’ resident lawyer Tannis A. Waugh discusses the most interesting legal issues emerging in popular culture and addresses your burning law-related queries. Want to contest a parking ticket? Can’t help you. Got a legal question for our in-house LLB? Drop her a line at tannis [at] confabulous [dot] ca. Note: Nothing in this column constitutes legal advice in any jurisdiction and is for information and discussion purposes only. If you have a legal problem, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction immediately.

Q: We’ve had equal marriage in Ontario now for 6 years. What’s the fall out? Is there a fall out?

A: At the time of the Halpern decision, my law practice was geared towards LGBT clients. I was working with two family lawyers who, as a result of the requirements to obtain a marriage licence here in Ontario, would be retained by foreign visitors planning to marry in Ontario.

We saw a lot of people come through the doors who were excited about not just the ability to marry, but the fact that they were able to marry their partner in an actual legal way (as opposed to a commitment ceremony).

Q: But what happens if married same-sex couples split up?

A: The one thing that you don’t hear about all that often is same-sex divorce. Working in law and working with family lawyers, this isn’t really an issue here in Ontario for residents of Ontario. The divorce process for same-sex couples is no different than that of heterosexuals.

However, there is a legal quagmire of what happens to those who came up to Ontario to get married from jurisdictions that did not and do not allow equal marriage.

Think about it: if you live in a state or jurisdiction that doesn’t allow equal marriage and you want to get divorced, you are essentially asking the state or jurisdictional government to grant a divorce for something that’s not allowed in that state/jurisdiction.

Q: Well, why don’t they just go back to Ontario to get divorced?

A: Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Family law is oriented to residency requirements in most jurisdictions, which creates rules on when and how a specific jurisdiction will recognize itself as the appropriate jurisdiction to deal with a matter. Generally, this requires one to be habitually resident for a certain period of time. So the same-sex couple in the jurisdiction that doesn’t allow equal marriage will meet the residency requirements, but their marriage isn’t recognized and are therefore unable to divorce. Conversely, in Ontario, their marriage is recognized but they haven’t met the residency requirements to get a divorce.

In New York state, the courts have recognized the validity of Ontario marriages. In this decision, heard on appeal, the court found that because the marriage wasn’t void for being in violation of the positive law (a clear statutory prohibition on equal marriage) or wasn’t incest or polygamy, it was therefore valid. While this decision wasn’t specifically about the right to divorce, it still has applicability to that process. (Please remember that I’m not a U.S. lawyer, and I got this information from general internet research, not official legal research. If I’m wrong, please correct me).

It also appears that New Jersey is recognizing equal marriage for the express purpose of divorce.

Q: So what are the options?

Stay married. Yeah, that’s a good one. But for those who lack the means to investigate other options, it may be what happens. Keep in mind that this creates an even bigger quagmire if one of the married couple decides he or she wants to get re-married, regardless of where that would occur. The party to re-marry may still be considered a bigamist in the jurisdiction that doesn’t allow equal marriage, and they certainly would be considered a bigamist here in Ontario.
Launch a challenge of the divorce law. This will cost a ridiculous amount of money and even those with significant means might not have the resources to fund this kind of litigation. There’s also no guarantee that they’d be successful. Given that equal marriage is such a politically charged issue, getting in front of a conservative judge could mean a decision that same-sex marriage means no same-sex divorce and therefore, it’s not their problem. Also, keep in mind that allowing same-sex divorce will be seen as extremely dangerous to those who oppose same-sex marriage, due to slippery slope arguments and the inherent recognition of the marriage as a legitimate marriage, even though it wasn’t allowed in the jurisdiction in which the divorce is sought.
Move to Ontario (or the place in which you were married originally). The Divorce Act (Canada) requires a 1-year residency immediately preceding the application for divorce but again, this is an option for those with means only.

None of these are ideal.

Let’s just hope that the rest of the world crawls out of their black hole and recognizes equal marriage everywhere so this is a moot point.

Tagged as: divorce inequality, equal marriage, U.S.A.

{ 0 comments }

Ask the Lady Lawyer! This week: Court of Appeal rules that the attractiveness of sexual assault victims isn’t relevant in a sexual assault trial

by Tannis on September 1, 2009 · 0 comments

in Advocacy

Regardless of what branch of feminism one identifies with, it’s fairly trite that a common complaint across the board is breaking down the stereotype that men only rape pretty women or women that the rapist is attracted to.

We know already that rape and sexual assault are not about sexual attraction but rather, about power and control. As such, the relative attractiveness of the victim is, of course, completely irrelevant.

Not so to a southern Ontario Judge tasked with presiding over the sexual assault trial of a man only identified as M.F. to protect the identity of his victims who were related to him.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has just overturned the conviction and sentence of M.F. for a legal error. The crown attorney, while cross-examining M.F., asked him questions about the attractiveness of his nieces which the Court of Appeal determined was a legal error that warranted overturning the conviction.

Justice Simmons of the Ontario Court of Appeal, unanimously writing for the Court, noted, “such a line of questioning would appear to be premised on a stereotypical assumption that only pretty females are sexually assaulted…there is no empirical support for such an assumption and questions about whether the appellant considered his nieces pretty were therefore wholly irrelevant to the issues at trial.

As a lawyer, I’m not entirely sure that the questioning on the relative attractiveness of the victims in question would have swayed the decision to convict in this particular case; however, the Court of Appeal decision leaves me with a lot of hope for the state of our justice system and the treatment of sexual assault victims within it.

M.F. had opted for a Judge-alone trial and the Judge did reference the questioning in the decision noting that M.F. was evasive when asking questions about pornography and the attractiveness of his nieces when referring to the credibility of M.F. Nonetheless, they were mentioned in the trial court Judge’s decision as a factor leading to the conviction and as a result, were properly found to be legal errors.

It seems to me that these comments would also apply on the flip side. In the event that a defence lawyer were to ask questions about the relative attractiveness of the victim or in the event that the accused made statements about how he could not have raped the victim because of her lack of attractiveness, such statements could not be relied upon in the reasons for judgment to acquit.

It would have been great if the original trial judge had recognized the irrelevance of the attractiveness of the victims and hadn’t thought it necessary to rely on the answers to irrelevant questions to assess the credibility of the accused but it’s pretty damn great that the Ontario Court of Appeal was so unequivocal about the fact that such an inquiry is indeed an error.

{ 0 comments }

Ask the Lady Lawyer! This week: Carleton, this is not your finest hour

by Tannis on August 14, 2009 · 4 comments

in Advocacy

ladylawyer Every Thursday, Confabulous’ resident lawyer Tannis A. Waugh discusses the most interesting legal issues emerging in popular culture and addresses your burning law-related queries. Want to contest a parking ticket? Can’t help you. Got a legal question for our in-house LLB? Drop her a line at tannis [at] confabulous [dot] ca. Note: Nothing in this column constitutes legal advice in any jurisdiction and is for information and discussion purposes only. If you have a legal problem, consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction immediately.

As an alumni of Carleton, I thought this was very apropos that I would get a chance to review and comment on the negligence suit that’s been brought against the university.

On August 31, 2007, a Carleton University student working late in one of the labs was violently sexually assaulted. It’s important that you hear the facts of the assault because they’re particularly egregious. The victim had her head slammed down to the ground while the perpetrator repeatedly smashed her face against the floor after which he sexually assaulted her. The perpetrator then wiped her body down, stole some of her clothes and her cell phone and left victim on the floor tied up and semi-naked.

Just shy of the two year limitation period to bring a suit against Carleton, the victim has brought a suit against the university for just over $500,000.

In the Statement of Defence served by the university, they engage in victim-blaming, according to the Carleton University Student’s Association (CUSA) and other student organizations, by indicating that Carleton is not responsible because the victim failed to keep a “proper lookout,” didn’t lock the door of the lab and stayed in the lab alone.

This is a civil suit and the university is being represented by lawyers hired by its insurer and as such, all the stops are being taken to shield itself from liability which is generally what happens when an insurance company is involved in negligence matters such as this one.

It might be helpful for me to give a crash course in how a civil case comes to pass in Ontario.

Firstly, the plaintiff will file a statement of claim which is meant to be a precise statement of the facts that the plaintiff intends to prove at trial. It doesn’t get into the evidence that will be relied upon by the plaintiff but rather, it is a concise statement of the facts that the plaintiff intends to prove by calling evidence.

The university, or more particularly, its insurers, have 20 days to respond (or 30 by filing a Notice of Intent to Defend) or longer if the parties’ lawyers agree to a further extension, to prepare and serve a statement of defence.

When drafting a statement of defence, the purpose is to set out all possible defences to the claims set out in the statement of claim. If this is not done, the defendant may not be able to add defences at a later point (this is generally done with leave of the court or consent from the other party only) and generally, will not be granted if it would prejudice the other party.

As a result, the statement of defence is usually set up as a kitchen sink denial of any and all possible liability.

For this reason, it would be pretty difficult to draft a statement of defence that complied with a lawyer’s duty to its defendant client by professional standards to not engage in victim blaming. That is, after all, the very nature of the statement of defence.

While the statement of defence obviously leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, I do understand that is the job of Carleton’s lawyer and frankly, there’s really no way to get around that…or is there?

After this assault, Carleton’s response was to institute significantly more security measures. To me, that indicates that Carleton recognized its lax security for its students who may be alone or working late.

It is a university, after all. Is that not what we were expected to do when we were in university? One only needs to think about being in an isolated area of the library or other part of their own university late at night to send a few chills down your spine about your own vulnerability.

The university may have been able to settle this case without the need for a public civil case to take place. Obviously, I’m not involved in this particular case but it’s general practice for a plaintiff’s lawyer to send a letter to the defendant prior to issuing a statement of claim in the interests of attempting to settle the matter without having to go through litigation. While it’s possible that this didn’t happen, it seems to me that this would have been the perfect opportunity to do the right thing. If the matter had settled, Carleton wouldn’t be receiving the bad publicity is now or the public outcry regarding its treatment of the victim.

Likely, this matter will be resolved before trial, as most civil cases are, and hopefully, the victim will obtain a settlement that will allow her to get on with her life as best as she can but in the meantime, the victim has to live through the stress of a claim that may take many years to resolve.

Tagged as: law

{ 4 comments }

Ask the lady lawyer! This week: Focus on the Family update their dress code

by Tannis on June 18, 2009 · 0 comments

in Advocacy

ladylawyer

Well, I know I’m relieved. Focus on the Family has finally updated their dress code to bring them in line with social norms in 1965 and will now allow women to wear pants. No kidding. You can read about it more here.

I’m a little sad that with the changes to the men’s dress code at Focus on the Family that spandex is still against the policy. I don’t think I can really take a Focus on the Family male employee seriously unless they’re decked up head to toe in spandex. Or is it that head to toe spandex drives home the seriousness of the message more? Meh.

Anyway, reading about this ridiculous policy change that made me immediately think of Mad Men and I thought, “I bet our readers would be interested in the legal issues associated with dress codes.”

Q: So what’s the big deal with dress codes?

A: In the workplace in a province like Ontario, true employees (not independent contractors) are subject to either the Employment Standards Act (Ontario) or their collective agreement, if they’re unionized, with few exceptions.

There are some basic rules regardless of whether one is unionized or not: dress codes can’t violate the Ontario Human Rights Code nor can they violate the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

This means that a policy for Acme Co. like, “all women must wear short skirts” is going to be a problem, whereas a rule like, “all people must wear steel toed boots and hardhats while on the factory floor” will not be a problem (unless, of course, there are more stringent requirements under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, in which case it would be a problem).

Q: Those are the easy examples. But what about the hard ones?

A: It seems that Muslim dress is a good example of a “hard example.” Similar to the issue of the niqab in Canadian Courts that I discussed a while ago, there is an interplay between competing issues in some working environments between the right to express one’s religion by dressing a certain way (i.e. fully covered skirts) and health and safety concerns.

Back in the fall, a group of women working for UPS brought an action against their previous employer under the Canadian Human Rights Code because their employment was terminated for their refusal to raise their ankle-length skirts up to their knees while using ladders.

The women had been able to do so for two years without complaint from the management at UPS but after a safety audit, it was found that this kind of clothing was a hazard. The women refused to raise their skirts because, even though they were wearing pants under the skirts, they felt that the pants showed off too much of their body which was against the strict interpretation of Sharia law at the Mosque that they worshiped at.

At the end of the day, the matter was settled confidentially between the employer and the employees, likely with a cash settlement to the terminated employees or a reinstatement to their jobs. However, both the Canadian and Ontario Human Rights Codes are interesting because the power of both tribunals to make orders is much more far reaching than a court and as such, the flexibility of the remedies available to them can make the tribunals more attractive as a vehicle for effective change regarding human rights in the workplace.

Q: Is there some sort of moral I can take from all of this talk about dress codes in the work place?

A: Yes. The basic rule is that the dress code should apply to everyone. As such, I wholeheartedly recommend instituting a policy whereby all employees are required to burlap bags on Fridays as a statement against dress codes (or solidarity with our sisters over at Focus on the Family and their newfound freedom to wear pants).

Tagged as: dress code, Focus on the Family, law, sexism

{ 0 comments }

Dreams for Women

by Sabine on June 18, 2009 · 1 comment

in Advocacy

As we announced last week, Confabulous is sharing Antigone Magazine’s Dreams for Women postcard project. Here are this week’s gorgeous cards!

Do you have a dream for women? Paint, draw or scribble it on a postcard and send it along to:

Antigone Magazine
C/O WILLA
Box 61 – 6138 SUB Blvd
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z1
OR antigonemagazine(at)hotmail.com

Tagged as: Dreams for Women

{ 1 comment }

Confabulous has Dreams for Women

by Sabine on June 9, 2009 · 1 comment

in Advocacy, Sex & gender

I’m really pleased to announce that Confabulous has teamed up with the mighty Antigone Magazine to bring you the Dreams for Women project. Dreams for Women is an amazing postcard project, along the lines of Postsecret, where men and women paint, write or do a collage on a postcard, answering the question: what is your dream for women? It’s also a calendar, a series of videos, and exhibit in the International Museum of Women. Want to send in your submission? Go to it!

Antigone Magazine
C/O WILLA
Box 61 – 6138 SUB Blvd
Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z1
OR antigonemagazine(at)hotmail.com

And now, here are this week’s postcards. Let them inspire you to make your own!

PS: The last 3 cards are from Anne Prampart, a Paris artist who makes the most amazing postal art. Check out her site: your jaw will drop and your mouth will water, guaranteed.

Tagged as: art, Dreams for Women

{ 1 comment }

Feminist Friday!

by Sabine on May 22, 2009 · 0 comments

in Advocacy

Feminist Friday at Confabulous.ca from Sabine Hikel on Vimeo.

Tagged as: Feminist Friday

{ 0 comments }

Ask the lady lawyer! This week: The niqab in Ontario courts

by Tannis on May 21, 2009 · 5 comments

in Advocacy

There is currently a controversy is brewing in Ontario courts about the use of niqabs. A niqab, in case you don’t know, is part of the religious dress for some Muslim women. It’s a veil worn over the face that only reveals the eyes of the wearer.

What is the context of this issue?

In the fall of 2008, an Ontario Court of Justice judge ordered a Muslim woman to testify without her niqab at a preliminary hearing for a sexual assault trial where the woman, who wanted to wear her niqab, was the complainant.

Why is this a problem?

There are a lot of interesting issues that come into play here, some of which get at the heart of our legal system. One could argue that a complainant wearing a niqab in court violates the very basic legal right of the accused to confront their accuser. But stopping a woman from wearing a niqab in court goes against her right to her religious beliefs.

There is also an issue of ethnocentrism at play here, and the question of whether the niqab is an instrument of women’s oppression or women’s freedom. This is obviously a very polarizing issue.

How did this particular matter resolve itself?

The Ontario Court of Justice is the lower level of Courts that deals with less-serious offences, called summary convictions. I don’t know the specific details of this sexual assault trial but for whatever reason, the Crown had elected to go the summary route. It could have gone the more serious, indictable route, where the offence would have wound up in the Superior Court.

The ruling about the niqab was also not done at the trial level but at a preliminary hearing. This is where the Crown has to prove that they have enough evidence to take the case all the way to trial. The judge presiding over the preliminary hearing decided that he had the authority to order the complainant to remove her niqab because he felt that her religious belief wasn’t a strong enough reason for her to keep it on.

This decision was appealed to the Superior Court where, on May 1, Justice Frank Marrocco released his decision regarding the preliminary judge’s ruling.

Judge Marrocco did not grant the complainant’s request to wear her niqab during the preliminary hearing. In his ruling, he indicated that the preliminary hearing judge would need to have another hearing on the issue because it had not been explored thoroughly.

The preliminary hearing was adjourned to August 19, and it will be very interesting to see what happens at that point. Will the complainant drop the issue? Will another hearing be held? Will the decision of the preliminary judge be appealed?

Issues of freedom of or from religion and legal rights in the criminal justice system are not easy to decide. In the multi-faceted fabric of legal and human rights, there can be a thousand shades of gray.

Tagged as: law, niqab

{ 5 comments }

← Previous Entries