Blogging for Equality

uOttawa law student op-ed - Feminist Law Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 08 Nov 2018 14:22:00 +0000

Laura Schemitsch, who is enrolled in this year’s Feminist Law Reform (CML4109B) course, has had her op ed published in the Huffington Post.

The students in the FLR course are writing op eds following a workshop offered by Shari Graydon (from Informed Opinions) with generous support from the ShirleyGreenberg Chair.

Surrogacy in Canada: Critical Perspectives

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 23 Jul 2018 13:50:00 +0000

On May 17th and 18th 2017 the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law hosted an SSHRC funded conference exploring feminist perspectives on surrogacy in Canada. Professors Alana Cattapan of the University of Saskatchewan, and Angela Cameron and Vanessa Gruben from the University of Ottawa hosted fifteen feminist scholars from Canada and abroad.

We are about to launch a book with Irwin Law based on this conference. Watch for Surrogacy in Canada: Critical Perspectives in Law and Policy in the fall of 2018.

The University of Ottawa Faculty of Law is home to a number of active and inspiring feminist student groups. The conference organisers were fortunate to have students from these organisations working with us at the conference. The post features the last of three interviews of conference presenters by student conference participants. These interviews highlight participant's ideas, research and writing on surrogacy in Canada and abroad.

Interview 3:

Towards Ethical Surrogacy Practices: A Conversation with Christine Overall

Stephanie Tadeo

Christine Overall has long been one of the leading feminist philosophers in Canada. A Professor Emerita and University Research Chair at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, she also writes in various areas including applied ethics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of education. Currently, some of her research centers on the need for a publicly-regulated system of surrogacy in Canada.

During the workshop on surrogacy in Canada hosted by the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law in May 2017, I had the opportunity to speak with Overall about her concerns about surrogacy practices. She was initially opposed to the entire practice of surrogacy. This opposition was informed by moral problems she identified in surrogacy, including the exploitation women face as surrogates and the potential harm to children born from surrogacy practices. Overall provided the recent example of Melissa Cook, a woman in California who lost her petition to be declared the legal mother of the triplets to whom she had given birth. Cook sought to retain custody of the babies when her relationship with the commissioning father became contentious. Part of what was contentious was the fact that C.M., the commissioning father, specifically requested the implantation of three male embryos, and then made many statements saying he could not care for them all. Upon learning Cook was to have triplets, he allegedly asked her several times to abort one fetus (a procedure called selective reduction), a process that Cook opposed. The triplets were born prematurely in February 2016 and kept in intensive care until they were released to C.M. in April 2016. A federal judge eventually dismissed Cook’s case, giving full parental rights to C.M.

For Overall, the Cook case provides an important example for understanding the complexities of human relationships and interactions within surrogacy practices. In the Cook case, for example, it is problematic that the minute the triplets were born, they were taken from Cook, who never had the opportunity to see them. According to Overall, the idea that providing a gamete (sperm, in this case) necessarily makes someone a parent is unjustified, and ignores the moral responsibility that women have for the child(ren) they carry and deliver.

Over time, Overall has come to accept that surrogacy is here to stay. Now, she focuses (and urges others to focus as well) on how we can govern the practice of surrogacy with an ethics oriented to protecting all parties involved. One recommendation she proposes is to establish a minimal competency standard for commissioning parents (sometimes called intended parents), similar to that which is used in adoption procedures. She considers surrogacy to be a form of “pre-conceptual adoption”: the fetus shares a material relationship with the gestational mother, but it doesn’t share one with the commissioners. Therefore, before responsibility for and authority over a child born of surrogacy can be transferred, commissioners must be able to meet a minimal competency standard.

In short, Overall continues to lead the way in terms of scholarship on the ethics of surrogacy. She brings to the surface important ethical questions we should be asking ourselves as we move forward with ever-changing forms of conception, parenthood and family. She demonstrates that, as we continue to accept and engage in new modes of reproduction, we need to confront tough questions about how to protect the rights and interests of all parties affected by surrogacy practices.

Indigenous Famous Six Celebration

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 11 Apr 2018 14:18:00 +0000

Come and celebrate the endurance of the Indigenous Famous Six and the decades of work they have done to address sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Please find attached a poster in two formats.

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/famous-six-celebration-celebrons-les-celebres-six-tickets-44800108330?utm-medium=discovery&utm-campaign=social&utm-content=attendeeshare&aff=esfb&utm-source=fb&utm-term=listing

We Are Egg Donors

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 05 Apr 2018 14:44:00 +0000

We Are Egg Donors Co-Founder Claire Burns to give raucous performance lecture, EGGDONORAMA, at Storefront Theatre’s Feminist Fuck It Festival

In Canada, the fertility industry currently presents egg donors with a veritable “eggdonorama” of experiences to “choose” from. With legalities around donation murky at best and the wide variance of standards of care from fertility clinic to clinic, it really can be a crapshoot whether or not an egg donor gets treated as a person, not a product.

Actor, playwright, Egg Donor and Advocate, Claire Burns, takes the stage with the insightful, castigating and loud mouthed performance lecture, Eggdonorama, at the Storefront Theatre’s Feminist Fuck It Festival Sunday April 15th at noon.

Claire Burns is a nationally renowned egg donor advocate. Her current work focuses on initiatives that prioritize the short and long term health of egg donors. Claire’s play Hatched (2012), inspired by her experience as an egg donor, led to the co-founding of We Are Egg Donors (WAED) in 2013.

WAED provides an honest platform for egg donors around the world to connect, proving that there is no "one size fits all" story for all of us. Because there are zero long-term studies on the health effects of egg donation, we partner with researchers and nonprofits like Our Bodies, Ourselves to advocate for initiatives that value donor health. We Are Egg Donors has been featured in The Atlantic, the New York Times, Globe and Mail, VICE andChatelaine.

Burns has been an invited speaker at the Canadian Institute of Health Research Donor Conception Conference (2013), Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society’s Annual Meeting (2015), Workshop on Proposed AHR Regulations (Ottawa 2016) and Health Canada’s Best Brains Exchange: Path Forward for the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2018).

With the current absence of oversight and data collection within the fertility industry, standard of care within clinics can vary wildly and the long term effects of donation are still unknown. It’s time for Canadians to wake up to the fact that without data and research egg donation is human experimentation with no possibility of informed consent.

Eggdonorama: A performance lecture about egg donation in Canada

April 15, 12pm Feminist Fuck It Festival, 360 Geary Avenue

Tickets available at www.eggdonorama.brownpapertickets.com

For more information, to schedule an interview, or to receive a press pass to this event please contact

Claire Burns at claireburns49@gmail.com

International Day on the Elimination of Racism

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:57:00 +0000

“You don't acknowledge an injustice and then refuse to do anything about it”:

In Conversation with El Jones Against the Pending Deportation

of Former Child Refugee Abdoul Abdi

Overview: The following is a transcript between activist, scholar and poet, El Jones, and students of CRIM 4133: International and Comparative Criminal Justice, St. Thomas University, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice instructed by Professor Josephine L. Savarese.

El Jones phoned in from Antigonish, Nova Scotia where she was about to deliver a lecture. The class proceeded through a questions and answer format. The students were writing out cards for Abdoul during the phone call. El could see their work through Skype.

The Questions and Answers

Class:

I don't know a whole lot about you, El. I know you're a poet and an activist. Is it possible to learn a little bit more about your background?

El Jones:

In terms of the activist part, I do a lot of work with prison activism. In fact, I'm going to have to let you go in about 10 minutes. I'm sitting outside a building at St FX where I'm about to go lecture.

I do a lot of work with people who are incarcerated, but from a community perspective, not sanctioned work by the prison system, work that’s outside of that. We have a radio show that we offer in the provincial prison. [Note: Black Power Hour broadcasts once a week out of CKDU, at Dalhousie University in Halifax. The show's goal is to empower people of colour, but specifically those inside Nova Scotia jails, where Black and Indigenous people are vastly overrepresented.]

We do a lot of community support. That’s how Abdoul knew my name, for example, before I connected with him. Abdoul used to listen to our radio show when he was on remand provincially. I am also involved in general activism work, community advocacy, stuff like that.

Class:

Can you tell us why you’re involved in the case?

El Jones:

There’s actually a bit of historical interaction. Do you remember the case of Ashley Smith?

Ashley Smith was a young woman who died inside of a Grand Valley institution ten years ago last year. She had a lot of mental health problems. She was initially imprisoned as a youth for throwing apples at a probation officer and then while inside youth prison she just kept racking up these small charges, so they just essentially kept keeping her in prison. Ashley Smith’s nephew, Jordan Ward, is the person that connects me to Abdoul’s case.

Jordan is himself also doing time. I don’t think he minds if I say this. He has some addiction struggles. In fact, it was quite shocking when he got incarcerated. He had robbed a pharmacy with a pen or something, which they called a weapon. They ended up giving him a federal sentence even though he had gone to rehab, even though he was attending school and holding a job.

He is the person that reaches out and basically says: “You have to do something for Abdoul”. They are doing time together and Abdoul’s sentence is winding down. Abdoul has been alerted that he is under deportation orders. Jordan very much felt for [Abdoul’s distress]. He reached out to his mother and to me and asked us to do something in about November 2017.

I connected with Abdoul from there. Jordan had to put him on the phone while he was making calls. In December, it just happens that I heard from Abdoul. We held a meeting at the Halifax Refugee Clinic with Ben Perryman, who is his lawyer, and Emma Halpern who is now with the Elizabeth Fry Society.

After that meeting, Julie Chamagne, Halifax Refugee Clinic, says: “Ahmed Hussen, who is the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, gave a TED Talk where he actually acknowledged his experience as a Somali refugee claimant”. I get home from that event on Friday and I'm attending this event called the National Black Summit on Monday. I look at the schedule and Ahmed Hussen is on the schedule. I've literally just had a conversation about him. Desmond Cole, a journalist in Toronto, who had previously done a story on Abdoul and had been on the radio show, and I decided to confront the Minister at the National Black Summit. That was the first set of public actions. That was at the beginning of December 2017.

Class:

When asked about Abdoul’s family relationships. El responded as follows:

El Jones:

I can't speak for Abdoul, but having spoken to him, I know that something he'd like to prioritize, but it's been difficult.

And of course, this is part of all of these systems, right? He's taken from his family and placed into foster care. Him and his sister remain close, but they are separated in homes at many points.

In many ways they have to fight to maintain that closeness. Fatouma, his sister, told me that they used to run away to see each other. One of the contacts Abdoul had with the police is stealing a car from a family when he was eleven and driving around the city looking for his sister.

Fatouma, his sister, has also told me that the reason why they don't speak their language is because when they were first put into group homes, they were punished for speaking Somali. So they were put on time-out if they were speaking with each other, because the view was “oh, you guys are probably plotting to escape”. They would be punished for speaking Somali.

That relationship has already been difficult enough. Just the brother and sister keeping a relationship, and of course they were taken from the aunt who identifies as his mother. That is also a challenging relationship. You see in this next generation of the kids those kids who are losing their parents through incarceration or through contact with child protection services. You see this really cyclical nature that once people get involved in these systems, it goes generation to generation to generation, You see this repeatedly with kids who are in contact with the youth system or with the foster care system or people who are in contact with incarceration, that it goes into the next generation.

Particularly, once you have a criminal record, they'll show up at the hospital, child protection will show up to either monitor you or surveil over you or take your child. You're seeing that in Abdoul’s case as well.

Class:

Abdoul is really Canadian. He spent the majority of his life here. The time that he spent in Somalia - he wasn't old enough to remember it in the first place. As a Canadian citizen trying to adapt to that culture and that type of society [he will struggle];that came up as a large point for us in class.

El Jones:

Yeah, it’s quite complex. Abdoul has never lived in Somalia. He was born in Saudi Arabia. His mother was Somali; I don't think his father is.

There's quite a bit of confusion about his origins. It matters because there's a clan system in Somalia. It’s: 1) he doesn’t speak the language and 2) he is not a practicing Muslim and has things like tattoos that physically identify you as not a practicing Muslim.

He is visibly North American, which is a huge problem. He doesn't have a clan relationship because that runs through the father. It is also a problem in Saudi Arabia. The government has said that they might try to deport Abdoul to Saudi Arabia. However, you can live in Saudi Arabia for generations and not be a Saudi citizen. Your father has to be a Saudi citizen. It’s unclear if he even has citizenship in Saudi Arabia, but he also was not born in Somalia, so he may be stateless. Abdoul has none of the very necessary clan ties and stuff. Even were he to speak the language, you need those ties as well.

This is actually one of the human rights issues in the case. I know that Ben Perryman [Abdoul’s lawyer] has been pursuing that issue in terms of finding out about that system because it is key for safety, for jobs, for being able to access resources in Somalia. Abdoul simply doesn't have that.

Class:

Essentially it would be subjecting him to a very insecure and unsafe life going into those circumstances?

El Jones:

Even in the best circumstances, he has no family there, no language, none of the culture. And then on top of that, people know that people are deportees and they know that deportation happens for a reason. It's very dangerous also for those deportees. There are cases of people being sort of lined up on the runway and shot because people argue “we don't want you here, you know?”

People know that these are the kind of people that our countries, “our countries”, I'm putting that in quotes, didn't want. That's very precarious as well. Somalia is on our list as one of the most dangerous countries. They get around that is by saying that only certain parts of Somalia are too dangerous. They deport into certain areas. In fact, the border agents aren't able to even go into Somalia. They actually drop them off at the border and pay human traffickers to take them across.

Class:

That's what I was going to say. Certain parts– it’s only certain parts that are unsafe, yet Canada won't even go into Somalia as a whole.

El Jones:

Of course, our Minister of Immigration is a refugee claimant from Somalia. He usually refers to himself as a refugee, but he wasn't a government sponsored refugee. He was a refugee claimant, meaning that he arrived so called “illegally”. I don't ascribe to these ideas of people being illegal. But by his own system, Canada’s immigration system, he came illegally to Canada. He made a refugee claim based on “a well-founded fear of persecution”, requirement under the law. His life was in danger and that claim was accepted by Canada.

Our own Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, and Refugees claims Canadian status based on it being too dangerous for him to go to Somalia. And of course, the Minister had family there, right? He has much more support than Abdoul would have in Somalia. He spoke Somali, he was from Somalia, whereas Abdoul is not. That's one of coincidences of this system: that we literally have an Immigration Minister who himself is a claimant based on the dangers of Somalia.

It is Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale that is mostly in charge of this, overseeing the system where a deportation could happen to a country he can’t go to.

Class:

What's somethings you think are really important to be shared on the news and social media.?

El Jones:

I think the most important piece– the most strategic pieces are around the foster care, right? Because [this factor] makes his case unique.

Canada deports people all the time. You only have to have six months of incarceration before you're eligible for deportation. In Abdoul’s case, the state was supposed to get him citizenship. When Ben Perryman, the lawyer, does a freedom of information request, it turns out that there's a policy gap. They don't have any policy on seeking citizenship on behalf of children in case and they don't anticipate closing that until 2019.

These kids are essentially in limbo. The government is acknowledging that there's a failure– they will all say that. Trudeau said that after Fatouma confronted him at a Town Hall Meeting. When Abdoul’s sister got up in front of Trudeau at the Town Hall Meeting in early January and said, “Why are you deporting my brother? Would you deport your own son?” Trudeau says the province failed Abdoul.

Minister Hussen said that recently at a Town Hall he held in Halifax. They all acknowledge it, but at the same time they are sort of shrugging their shoulders and saying, “We failed, but…” Abdul continues to be punished for a failure that isn't his own failure; it was a failure of the system.

These kids are taken into care to, so called, “protect” them, but they've been denied the protection of the most basic rights. If you don't have citizenship, you're being denied, as Ben would put it, the right to even have rights.

It’s difficult because, of course, he did commit a violent crime. So, for a lot of people, that's: well, he's a criminal, so ship him out or let him go. The point we always make with that is Aboul did his time. He took responsibility, he was accountable, he's paid the price and had everything happen as it should have in terms of his citizenship. He would now be rebuilding his life like any other person who serves time, because many Canadian citizens, also commit crimes, right?

This kind of way of being declared a public danger was initially developed for things like murderers, drive-by shootings, gang activity and is now being applied to small things. They’re using quite a broad brush to paint people as public dangers, which then allows them to go through this whole system.

The other point that Ben Perryman is making is the lack of process. Every time Abdoul’s case gets heard in federal court, he's winning, but CBSA doesn't follow those processes. All they have to do is say that you committed a crime and you're not a citizen and that's basically an automatic triggering of these processes and that's how you lose your admissibility. But Ben's pointing out there's all these other issues of the Charter, the rights of minors. There are issues in international law which involves, under the UN, for example, an obligation to provide special protection to non-citizen children and care. These issues aren't even being heard under the border services proceedings. They literally like, “OK, so did you commit a violent crime? Yes. Are you a citizen? No. OK, so deport”. There's very serious human rights issues that are being addressed here that the processes that are in place essentially don't address. One of the things I'm pushing for is to have this case heard in court where the issues can be given a full hearing by an actual judge and not this very automatic process that doesn't take any of these things into account.

The other thing is, of course, Abdoul has a job now and the admissibility hearing will strip him of that ability to hold his job, which is also a condition in his parole. His job is actually working with kids in care and working with policy makers, in particular, to address what we call crossover, which is the phenomenon of the kids moving between the youth justice– the foster care system and the criminal justice system. Essentially they're saying, “there is this failure of the system, we didn't address these problems. Abdoul's in a job where he's in a position to address this and they want to strip him of that job”.

When does Abdoul get a chance? He's not given a chance as a child; he’s sent to thirty-one homes, he only has a great six education. He's failed in all these ways. Nobody gives him therapy or mental health care. The failures go on and on and now having sent him to prison, having done his time, we can't even allow him the chance to just hold the job, reconnect to his child and live his life. We have to continue punishing him. He's being punished, not even double, he gets prison and deportation and then this sort of triple punishment of losing his healthcare and losing his status and losing his rights.

Class:

It’s unfortunate that the language of the law is so broad and then specific and essentially like when you said: “have you committed a crime, are you a citizen, OK, deported,” Like it doesn't take in considerations and it doesn't necessarily have to be. That’s what’s sad about it. It's like so broad and generalized that, I don't know, It's hard, like it's hard when people have these situations and it's often not heard or taken into consideration.

El Jones:

I guess the last thing I'll say is, Minister Hussen did acknowledge and use the words “anti-blackness” to describe what has happened, because we know black kids are disproportionately taken into care. We know black kids are failed in care so they don't receive culturally competent care. They’re criminalized within care. For example, the police might be called if you roll your eyes at a worker, so they’re criminalized. Within that, they experience very high rates of crossover into the criminal justice system and then of course become criminalized in the immigration system as well. And so he uses this word anti-black racism to accurately describe this. This is a very representative case of the way black kids are failed by Canada, but then essentially he's like, but we're not doing anything.

So, this is one of the things we're saying - you can't say it's anti-black racism and then stand back. You don't acknowledge an injustice and then refuse to do anything about it. If you can name this as anti- black racism, obviously then, you need to stop what you're doing. That's been one of the infuriating things. This word is being thrown around: anti-black racism, which Abdoul absolutely exemplifies, but then people have basically been saying, “oh well, it's anti- black racism”. As if saying it means anything.

Class:

What are the chances that he won't be deported, in your personal opinion?

El Jones:

I think they are good. My reading of Minister Hussen’s appearance in the Town Hall, was that he more or less promised us, without promising, he more or less said: When I have the chance to do a compassionate intervention. I, you know, have that opportunity. But uh, that's– the average time for those appeals is 2-3 years, and the problem is that in that time you completely without status, so you cannot work, you cannot access healthcare, you’re not eligible for school funding. Like all of these things prevent you from having any kind of status, so I don't actually believe he'll get deported. I have quite a lot of faith that he won't. It's just been too serious of a case, but the issue is why we have to wait for things to hit that critical point when it's a clear human rights issue. Why do we have to make him suffer for three years when there's clear issues of human rights involved?

El Jones:

I will say that we encourage people [to make changes]. The tweeting, the writing letters, it does help; it keeps the pressure on. Anything to keep this on the Minister's radar so they know that Canadians are serious about this.

Thank you for really caring about this issue. It means a lot to Abdoul. He follows everything online as well. So, um, he sees when people tweet about him, he sees what people post about him. Um, and when people aren't, he also sees that. So, to just keep up that kind of publicity and that support for Abdoul is really important. It is very, very difficult for him. We encourage people to visibly express support so that he knows what's going on.

Class:

These are the letters that we're writing: “There is a warm meal and a hug for you in Fredericton, Abdoul”. “No justice, no peace”. “We the people are behind you”. “We are with you”. “Be Strong”. “Hang in there”. “Thinking about you and wishing you the best”.

El Jones

These are wonderful. He will really appreciate that. One of the stories he tells me, one of the first times I speak to him after he comes out of prison, he talks about being held in immigration detention and he's in a cell and the cell is just covered in the names and dates of people, we'll say like: 2006 January 16th, and a name and he realizes that it's, the names of people who have been deported. To Abdoul, they read as his death date and he just imagined his name going on this wall. He thinks of himself as being in a tomb or in his own grave because he sees being deported as a state beyond death.

He believes he won't be remembered when this happens, that he'll fall off the face of the earth. He asked me if I'd even remember he existed once he's deported. This is one reason why we feel acknowledging him and recognizing him is so important so that he knows that he is a human being, that he has value and people recognize him.

Thank you so much.

Everyone, in response:

Thank you so much!!

Submitted by Professor Josephine L. Savarese

Josephine L. Savarese is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at St Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. Her most recent publication is on activism after deaths in custody. It is: “Leaving a Light on for Ash: Explorations into the Activist Mothering of Coralee Smith (Mother of Ashley Smith, 1988-2007),” Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research & Community Involvement 8, no. 1/2 (2017): 99.

The interview with El Jones was transcribed by Joshua Sallos, a student at St. Thomas University.

Update From El Jones: 19 March 2018

Abdoul returns to court on March 21st, which is also the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This day is recognized in remembrance of the Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa, where Black South Africans were protesting the pass laws.

Leading up to March 21st, challenge Canada on how anti-Black racism is active in Abdoul's case, perpetuated through the child welfare system, the youth justice system, the criminal justice system, and the immigration system.

We can draw a direct continuum between our comrades in South Africa and Abdoul today. Just as Black South Africans were treated as non-citizens in their own country, Abdoul, despite being raised in Canada and considering himself Canadian, is treated by our government as though he doesn't belong here. Black South Africans were removed from their homes just as Abdoul was taken away from his home.

Paperwork and law was used to control, criminalize and surveil Black South Africans, just as Abdoul today is a victim of process, of paperwork undone, and is subject to check-in and surveillance. The laws may not be as explicit, but the anti-Black racism, the stripping of rights, the control of movement are all being experienced today by Abdoul in Canada - a Canada that specifically targets Black bodies as a danger, as not really Canadian, and as a contamination upon the "good" whiteness of Canada.

Ask Canada to uphold our duties under international law to non-citizen children in care. Recognize that eliminating racism means that Abdoul cannot be disposable, and that continuing to victimize and abuse him through the courts marks a complete failure of justice and human rights. To strip Abdoul of his residency on the 21st is a terrible irony, and puts into stark relief the difference between Canada's claims to be a beacon of human rights, and the realities for Black people living here. #FreeAbdoulAbdi #StoptheDeportationNow @RalphGoodale @AhmedHussen

Reflections on the 2018 Kawaskimhon National Aboriginal Moot

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:01:00 +0000

Breanne Martin, Kelly Duquette, Ryan Stiles
Kyle Brooks, Jamie Lickers, Maria Lucas

uOttawa Faculty of Law students Maria Lucas, Breanne Martin, Ryan Stiles, Kyle Brooks and Kelly Duquette all participated in the 2018 Kawaskimhon moot- a consensus-based descision-making exercise.

Huge thanks to coaches Graham Ragan and Jamie Lickers who supported the team.

Reflections on the 2018 Kawaskimhon National Aboriginal Moot

Maria Lucas
JD Candidate uOttawa Faculty of Law

On March 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th2018, I had the opportunity to participate in the Kawaskimhon National Aboriginal Moot. Kawaskimhon is a Cree word roughly translated to “speaking with knowledge”. The moot is a consensus-based, non-adversarial moot that incorporates Indigenous legal traditions alongside federal, provincial, and international law. This year’s topic of negotiation was the protection, control, and trade of Indigenous cultural heritage. Parties to the negotiation had to develop a legal framework that would ensure the protection and control of Indigenous cultural heritage at both a local and national level. My team represented the Indigenous Bar Association as an intervenor in the negotiation. Our role was to ensure that Indigenous legal traditions were recognized and permitted to operate within or alongside the legal framework the parties developed.

One of the most valuable lessons I took from this experience is that inherent in negotiation is compromise. If parties walk away from the negotiation table feeling like they lost something to the other, then it was a successful negotiation. In this way, I thought that the Kawaskimhon National Aboriginal Moot accurately reflected what can occur in Indigenous-Canadian negotiations with respect to Indigenous land claims, modern treaties, and self-government agreements. However, while compromise may be inherent in these negotiations, I do not think that the compromises should be of such a degree that they detract from Indigenous people’s inherent sovereignty and laws. Indigenous people’s sovereignty and laws must always inform Indigenous-Canadian relations if the nation-to-nation relationship is to be restored in Canada.

New blog from Prof. Joanne St. Lewis

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 15 Mar 2018 16:08:00 +0000

uOttawa law`s Prof. Joanne St. Lewis recently published this op-ed on the role of race and racism in current debates on the federal budget.

Surrogacy in Canada: Critical Perspectives in Law and Policy II

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 12 Feb 2018 21:02:00 +0000

On May 17th and 18th 2017 the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law hosted an SSHRC funded conference exploring feminist perspectives on surrogacy in Canada. Professors Alana Cattapan of the University of Saskatchewan, and Angela Cameron and Vanessa Gruben from the University of Ottawa hosted fifteen feminist scholars from Canada and abroad.

The University of Ottawa Faculty of Law is home to a number of active and inspiring feminist student groups. The conference organisers were fortunate to have students from these organisations working with us at the conference. The next few blog posts will feature interviews of conference presenters by student conference participants. These interviews highlight participant's ideas, research and writing on surrogacy in Canada and abroad.

Interview 2:

Surrogacy in Canada: Emma Ryman and the Fiduciary Duty

Tori Paton

Despite three years of law school in two different countries, I know little about fiduciary duties, other than that they are challenging to research and that they seem to be a relatively flexible concept. A fiduciary duty, if I understand correctly, is the duty that one has to act in the best interest of another, in cases where the first person exercises power on behalf of the second. A classic example of a fiduciary duty is a board member of a corporation, in which the board member has an obligation to the shareholders to act in the best interests of the corporation (and not in their own interest). Other examples include trustee arrangements, or the delegation of power of attorney.

Emma Ryman is an expert on the role of the fiduciary duty on physician’s fiduciary obligations in the context of surrogacy. I met her while volunteering for a workshop on Surrogacy in Canada held at the University of Ottawa in May 2017. The workshop brought together scholars in the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and bioethics, all who have worked in different areas of surrogacy throughout their academic careers. Ryman, a doctoral candidate in the Philosophy Department at Western University, was one of these scholars, and her research on the fiduciary duty immediately piqued my interest. She takes a normative approach to the study of the fiduciary duty in patient-physician relationships in the case of surrogacy, investigating not whether the relationship between doctors and surrogates is recognized as being fiduciary in the law, but whether it should be.

As someone who focuses on family and immigration law (where I rarely run into the legal issue of fiduciary duties), I had never thought about the fact that a fiduciary duty could exist between a doctor and a patient. I always thought of fiduciary duties in the context of a mortgage broker or a trustee. As Ryman explained, the physician-patient relationship is clearly a fiduciary one, however, as it is a relationship in which patients trust their doctor to make some decisions on their behalf, and assume that their doctor will make decisions in their best interest (see for example, McInerney v MacDonald).

For the case of surrogacy, it is important to stress that people who have fiduciary duties have a responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest. Physicians need to act in their patients’ best interests and should not be in a position that might tempt them to advance their own. But conflicts of interest are prevalent in surrogacy arrangements. Surrogates are pregnant women, whose health is impacted by their pregnancy in the same ways as other women. At the same time, there are other people who have a vested interest in that pregnancy. In India (which, until recently, had a very significant market in international surrogacy) surrogates typically lived away from their families in hostels, with strict regulation of their living conditions, diet, and exercise. While some physicians were involved in the medical surveillance of surrogates in India, care was often provided to advance the interests of the intended parents, the surrogacy agency, and the physician, as well as the child to be born, with little attention paid to the women’s health and well-being.

Although the case of surrogacy in North America is quite different (as described by three women who spoke at the workshop about their experiences as surrogates), there is a similar desire among intended parents to control the actions of the women carrying their child, and their doctors and clinics and lawyers play important roles in those arrangements. Although her explanation of these conflicts of interest were enough to convince me that physicians owe surrogates a fiduciary duty, she substantiated her position by referring to the work of another workshop attendee, Pamela White. White identified the concern that in the context of fertility clinics, intended parents’ interests may be prioritized over surrogates, and the surrogate can easily be seen as the ‘treatment to the couple’s infertility,’ rather than a patient herself.

Ryman suggested a number of ways that the situation might be improved. One way would be to implement payment structures where surrogates are given money upfront by intended parents to pay for their own medical expenses. Other ways of ensuring surrogates’ health interests are prioritized include requiring that parties receive independent medical care for all parties, and giving freedom to doctors to refuse to enforce the terms of surrogacy contracts when doing so is in surrogates’ best medical interests. Finally, Ryman suggests that single embryo transfer should be standard practice so doctors won’t be tempted to increase success rates by transferring multiple embryos (a danger for surrogates since it often leads to higher risk, multiple pregnancies).

Some of Ryman’s recommendations will be difficult to achieve, and given legislative and regulatory challenges in this field, legislation may never be able to address all of these concerns. And while it is already widely recognized that doctors have fiduciary duties to their patients, ensuring that doctors act on this duty in the context of surrogacy is a different story. At the same time, reforms that prioritizes surrogates’ agency, health, and safety in surrogacy agreements is likely to create positive changes for surrogates. With the work of scholars like Ryman, however, we may have new arguments and tools to continue to work toward change.

Surrogacy in Canada: Critical Perspectives in Law and Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 06 Feb 2018 21:05:00 +0000

On May 17th and 18th 2017 the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law hosted an SSHRC funded conference exploring feminist perspectives on surrogacy in Canada. Professors Alana Cattapan of the University of Saskatchewan, and Angela Cameron and Vanessa Gruben from the University of Ottawa hosted fifteen feminist scholars from Canada and abroad.

The University of Ottawa Faculty of Law is home to a number of active and inspiring feminist student groups. The conference organisers were fortunate to have students from these organisations working with us at the conference. The next few blog posts will feature interviews of conference presenters by student conference participants. These interviews highlight participant's ideas, research and writing on surrogacy in Canada and abroad.

Interview 1:

Melanie Snow

Surrogacy in Canada: A Commentary on Regulation with Jocelyn Downie

Although the Assisted Human Reproduction Act has existed since 2004, the Canadian regulatory landscape in relation to surrogacy, remains somewhere between sparse and non-existent. At the workshop on surrogacy in Canada hosted by the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, an interdisciplinary group of Canadian, feminist academics presented a wide variety of perspectives on the issue, their diverging opinions suggesting why this area has remained unregulated for so long. While the workshop was successful, it underlined the fact that much work was left to be done in areas ranging from scientific and social science research to public awareness and acceptance of the practice.

According to Dr. Jocelyn Downie, a professor in both the faculties of Law and Medicine at Dalhousie University, regulating surrogacy is the key ingredient needed to achieve these goals. Downie (whose many areas of specialization include health law and assisted reproduction) called out Health Canada for their failure to regulate in this important field.

When asked whether the lack of movement by Health Canada was due to an absence of empirical data in the field that might support change, Downie specifically stated that the lack of evidence was tied to the lack of regulations: “They [Health Canada] haven’t put in place the systems for enabling us to get that evidence so they need to fully implement the Act and [increase] our capacity to generate the evidence.”

Her insistence comes in part from the fact that the wait for regulations to bring certain parts of the Act into force is ongoing, more than ten years after the Act first passed. She emphasized not only that the delay in making the regulations has been long, but also that there is “no good reason” for it. Downie emphasized that that Health Canada could proceed immediately, stating: “I think they should put out draft regulations, they should do a consultation, they should put them in place and then enforce them.”

The absence of these regulations is particularly difficult as the regulations play a key role in the potential effective enforcement of the law. Under the Act, surrogates can be reimbursed for receipted expenditures, but what can count as a legitimate expense is left to the regulation-to-come. The Act aims to avoid a commercial system, premised instead, following Downie, on the idea that “you shouldn’t be out of pocket but you shouldn’t be making money.” When asked what regulations she would put in place if she was able to do so tomorrow, Downie asserted that she would start by providing “Very clear guidance on what you can include as a receipted expenditure,” as well as processes for submitting receipts and oversight.

In emphasizing this connection Downie underlined the important role the criminal law plays in public awareness surrounding surrogacy.

“It’s an indirect effect of having the regulations. […] Part of why we have the silence around surrogacy to my mind is because it has not been clear to people, or it’s been suggested that the law is unclear. […] So, there is confusion around what’s legal and not legal, in relation to surrogacy, and there have been practices going on that I think are illegal but it’s not being enforced. So, there is this spectre of illegality in the context of criminal law that means that I think people feel most comfortable in the shadows, and I think that’s unhealthy. But until we get the regulations in place and the enforcement of the regulations and the law, that is what’s going to continue to keep it out of public discourse.”

The very clear message to Health Canada then, from this highly accomplished Canadian scholar would seem to be: regulation and enforcement; sooner rather than later.

The Case Against Presumed Equal Shared Parenting

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 18:33:00 +0000

The Case Against Presumed Equal Shared Parenting
Kate Harveston

Recently, an article was published on National Post in which the author posits that Conservative Party of Canada leader Andrew Scheer should make supporting presumed equal shared parenting (ESP) a policy position.

Presumed equal shared parenting is a hot issue right now all over the world, as many believe that men are not receiving equal access to their children after a divorce. A battle over custody can quickly turn dirty — separating when there are children involved is never easy. Some see the solution to this problem as implementing presumed equal shared parenting. In other words, both the mother and the father would automatically get custody.

While an appropriate choice in some situations, ESP might not always represent the best interest of both parties in all scenarios. Let’s jump into why I don’t agree with this plan.

What is Equal Shared Parenting?

When a couple with children divorce, they have to consider who will retain custody of the children. In some situations, both parents acknowledge custody should split in a way so both parties can have a say in the child’s upbringing. However, some situations call for a serious debate.

In most cases, the mother gains custody of the children. This outdated notion views women as the mother and the father as the breadwinner of the family. In other words, the mother retains custody of the children because the court views her as already raising the children anyway, while the father works.

Supporters of equal shared parenting, like Barbara Kay, argue this idea as outdated and incorrect. It is not fair to assume the father as absent in the child’s life, and therefore, they should receive the same rights to custody as the mother. It also considers fathers may stay at home while mothers head off to work, or that both the mother and the father share the responsibilities of maintaining a home and raising a family.

Equal shared parenting aims to help both children and fathers during a separation. By preventing the mother from assuming complete custody of the children, children of divorce can still grow up with a father in their lives, and fathers can remain a part of raising their kids. This can improve the happiness and mental health benefits of both parties.

While I recognize the truth in this, equal shared parenting presents a number of other problems – ones that could put the children at a real risk of danger.

The Problem With Equal Shared Parenting

Equal shared parenting assumes both parents deserve equal parts of the parenting responsibilities unless a clear reason states why they should not. This means while they recognize in instances of abuse that the abusive parent should not have parenting rights, it may also mean children may slip through the cracks and remain around their abuser.

With ESP, a mother and her legal team would need to prove without any question that abuse occurred between the father and the children. In many cases, the abuse could be emotional or otherwise difficult to prove. If a mother cannot come up with efficient evidence, the father would still retain equal parenting rights.

This idea can pose dangerous threats to families at an already sensitive time. Many abuse victims don’t take the necessary steps to record and report instances of abuse. Whether scared of retaliation or they believe it won’t happen again, abuse victims don’t necessarily document their circumstances. Unless they happen to still show signs of the abuse or a situation happens during the court process, it remains nearly impossible for the mother to prove.

This can have incredibly an incredibly detrimental impact on children throughout their lives. In addition to the mental illness risk associated with fear and not being heard, growing up in an abusive household has also been linked to increased physical medical conditions throughout life.

The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study found that around 64 percent of their 17,000 participants had experienced at least one exposure to trauma at home. The results linked childhood exposure to violence, abuse and impaired caregivers with conditions such as cancer, heart disease and early death.

Without ESP, both parents must state their case as to why they should have custody of the child. This allows for more freedom between the separation and more flexibility, giving parents the option to share different kinds of custody. However, even with the different types of child custody, including varying levels of involvement, some children would remain safer and better off with no involvement from their abusive parent.

Dealing With Custody Agreements in a Separation

There is no clear answer to handling a custody separation. With everyone’s lives and livelihood at stake, it can prove overwhelming and challenging to come up with the right answer. However, looking at each situation on a case by case basis is important for any family.

Although many men feel treated unfairly in a custody case, this isn’t really true. Assuming fathers automatically deserve shared custody may grant some fathers more than they deserve. This may not improve the circumstances of the fathers who do deserve to be a part of their children’s lives.

Making it more difficult for mothers to prove that their spouse has been abusive to the children may cause them to fear a separation even more. If they know that the other spouse will have an equal say in raising the kids, they may not want to go through that process because of the retaliation an abusive father may have on the children.

Fathers who deserve a place in their children’s lives should have equal access and control when compared to the mother. However, assuming either parent should maintain rights leaves a dangerous trail. The equal shared parenting bill may prove dangerous. Is it worth risking the lives and health of children?

A better solution needs to ensure fathers are getting a fair case in a separation, but granting them immediate shared custody may not be the way.

Kate Harveston is a freelance writer and blogger from the states. Her writing covers social justice issues and current events in the U.S., Canada, and all over the world. When she’s not writing, she can be found curled up with a book or exploring the city for new things to do. You can follow her writing by visiting her blog, Only Slightly Biased.

The Best Places for Women to Live and Work in Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 11:46:00 +0000

Oh, Canada — our vast country has plenty of great cities and towns, but of those top-tier places to live, there are a few that are particularly wonderful for women. That’s because they marry a great quality of life with ample opportunity to work for employers who value their female employees.

Ready to pack up and move to a place prime for female employment and empowerment? Try one of the following five cities:

1. Victoria, BC

A recent survey placed Victoria at the top of the list of Canada’s most female-friendly cities. Why did it reach the top? Because Victoria has the most women in positions of power — literally in government — than any other Canadian city.

On top of that, Victoria has a nearly equal employment level among its male and female residents and unionized public-sector positions, which means government employees are paid well.

2. London, Ontario

London has a full slate of attractions — wineries, first-class restaurants, sports — that’ll make living there fun. But the state of employment there is good, too, and it’s one only a few Canadian cities where there are more men in poverty than women. That’s a figure that should be fixed for both sexes, but it does show that there’s plenty of well-paying work to go around in London.

3. Gatineau, Quebec

The waterfront views in Gatineau will rope you into the city, but you’ll stay for the fair wages. In Gatineau, women make 87 cents to every dollar that men do. It’s still an unfair gap — there should be no gap at all — but the fact that it’s much higher than the average 74 cents to the dollar that women take home in Canada.

Women in Gatineau make more money and regularly achieve high-level positions. The city is seeing more women promoted into senior management positions.

4. Abbotsford-Mission, BC Abbotsford and Mission are both extremely safe destinations for women on the move: the rate of sexual assault and violence between intimate partners is much less than the national average. For women, this is even more of an important figure, considering women are 11 times more likely to be victims of this type of crime or abuse.

Moving to Abbotsford or Mission could be a smart move for those involved with local government, too. The area has a fairly staffed city council with an almost 50-50 breakdown of men and women on staff.

5. St. Johns, NL

More than half of the women in St. Johns, NL, are employed full-time. This is the second-highest rate of employment for women in the country, according to the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. The government isn’t as equally staffed as some of the other cities, but women here are more likely to have higher education levels than their male counterparts.

This isn’t an exhaustive list of all the cities in Canada where women thrive — the aforementioned survey by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women found 13. But these are all top contenders and promise more equality and opportunity than some of the other dots on your map.

Bio:

Kate Harveston is a freelance writer and blogger from the states. Her writing covers social justice issues and current events in the U.S., Canada, and all over the world. When she’s not writing, she can be found curled up with a book or exploring the city for new things to do. You can follow her writing by visiting her blog, Only Slightly Biased.

Event: Surrogacy in Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 11 May 2017 19:52:00 +0000

Perspectives on Legal Responses to the Sex Trade III

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:31:00 +0000

Perspectives on Legal Responses to the Sex Trade III

The Shirley Greenberg Chair in Women and the Legal Profession presented two events during the 2016-17 academic year showcasing a variety of perspectives on legal responses to the sex trade. Faculty members, staff, students, alumni and the broader University of Ottawa community hold very different opinions on the appropriate legal response to the sex trade in Canada, reflecting a spectrum of positions from abolitionism to de-criminalisation or legalisation. These events are intended to provide a venue for the respectful expression and debate of opinions along this spectrum.

The first event took place in the fall term, on September 22^nd, 2016, and featured three speakers whose positions reflect a diversity of abolitionist perspectives. The second event, which took place on March 29th, 2017, featured three speakers whose positions reflect a variety of legalisation and de-criminalisation perspectives. The order of these events was dictated by the availability of the speakers, and does not reflect a hierarchy of ideas.

One of the most important roles of a university is to create an environment for the free, respectful expression and exchange of ideas. At the Faculty of Law we aim to foster a space of inquiry, learning, debate and exchange. These two events were designed to educate the members of the law school community on the relevant debates, and to provide a forum for respectful questioning and discussion.

Below you will find the list of speakers from each panel, a link to an audio podcast of each event, any Power Points that were used, and a series of links to information on the spectrum of proposed legal responses to the sex trade.

Some audio presentations and Power Points contain explicit sexual content and/or describe sexual and other forms of violence.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Panel 1: September 22, 2017
Abolitionist Perspectives on the Sex Trade

Panelists:

1) Bridget Perrier is a First Nations woman and co-founder of Sextrade101 (http://www.
sextrade101.com/).

2) Dr. Ingeborg Kraus is a Psychologist and trauma expert based in Germany.

3) Detective Inspector Simon Häggström, Stockholm Police Force Prostitution Unit.

Link to audio podcast of panel.

Power Point Presentation Detective Inspector Simon Häggström.

Power Point Presentation Dr. Ingeborg Kraus.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Panel 2: March 29th, 2017
Advocating for Sex Worker's Rights

Panelists:

1) Anna-Aude Caouette is a sex worker's rights activist.

2) Sandra Chu is the Director of Research and Advocacy, Canada HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

3) Kate Shuetze is a policy advisor to Amnesty International.

Link to audio podcast of panel.

Power Point Presentation of Anna-Aude Caouette.

Power Point Presentation of Sandra Chu.

Power Point Presentation of Kate Shuetze.

________________________________________________________________________________

Links to information on the spectrum of proposed legal responses to the sex trade:

Amnesty International’s research and policy work on decriminalization (set in an international context).

Emily Bazelon writes about the history of difficult feminist discussions on the sex trade.

Janine Benedet offers an abolitionist perspective.

The Open Society Foundations offers Ten Reasons to Decriminalize Sex Work.

The Social Action and Executive Committees of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies passed an abolitionist resolution.

Jane Doe's new op-ed on sexual assault

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:22:00 +0000

Jane Doe, who presents uOttawa law's annual Greenberg lecture on sexual assault law and policy, has recently published an op-ed in Toronto Now.

Perspectives on Legal Responses to the Sex Trade II

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:27:00 +0000

Perspectives on Legal Responses to the Sex Trade II

The Shirley Greenberg Chair in Women and the Legal Profession will present two events during the 2016-17 academic year showcasing a variety of perspectives on legal responses to the sex trade. Faculty members, staff, students, alumni and the broader University of Ottawa community hold very different opinions on the appropriate legal response to the sex trade in Canada, reflecting a spectrum of positions from abolitionism to de-criminalisation or legalisation. These events are intended to provide a venue for the respectful expression and debate of opinions along this spectrum.

The first event will take place in the fall term, on September 22^nd, 2016, and will feature three speakers whose positions reflect a diversity of abolitionist perspectives. The second event, planned for March 29th, 2017, will reflect a variety of legalisation and de-criminalisation perspectives. The order of these events is dictated by the availability of the speakers, and does not reflect a hierarchy of ideas.

One of the most important roles of a university is to create an environment for the free, respectful expression and exchange of ideas. At the Faculty of Law we aim to foster a space of inquiry, learning, debate and exchange. These two events are designed to educate the members of the law school community on the relevant debates, and to provide a forum for respectful questioning and discussion.

Below you will find a series of links to information on the spectrum of proposed legal responses to the sex trade.

Amnesty International’s research and policy work on decriminalization (set in an international context).

Emily Bazelon writes about the history of difficult feminist discussions on the sex trade.

Janine Benedet offers an abolitionist perspective.

The Open Society Foundations offers Ten Reasons to Decriminalize Sex Work.

The Social Action and Executive Committees of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies passed an abolitionist resolution.

Valuing Discourse: Senators Discuss INAC’s “Unstated Paternity” Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:01:00 +0000

Valuing Discourse: Senators Discuss INAC’s “Unstated Paternity” Policy

By Lynn Gehl, Ph.D.

When Members of Parliament and Senators borrow, assimilate, or adopt gender-neutral language such as “unstated parentage” or “unnamed parent” when the discrimination is anything but, they potentially approve legislation that harms mothers and babies.

Prior to 1985 the Indian Act protected children born to mothers when their father’s signature was not recorded on their birth certificate in that they were considered to be an Indian. When the Indian Act was amended this protection was removed. What then resulted is the Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) gained more control when processing applications in situations of unknown, unacknowledged, unrecognized, unnamed, and unstated paternity.[1]It was at this moment when power was more firmly in the hands of administrators rather than legislation where as a result INAC began to more easily apply its goal of the need to eliminate the Indian problem. The new low being, mothers and babies became the target.

At first there was no written policy, but eventually INAC posted on line its “unstated paternity” policy. While the name of the policy itself is an issue in that it clearly blames mothers, the policy guides people to have their birth certificate amended, or obtain a statutory declaration signed by both parents. Another option offered is a statutory declaration from the biological father’s family members.[2]

These options offered by INAC do not capture the lived reality of conception, birthing, and the failure of documents to understand the lived reality of abusive situations. For example, INAC’s policy does not account for situations of rape where mothers do not know the father best known as the offender; situations of domestic violence where mothers need to protect themselves and their child; and then there are situations where fathers refuse to acknowledge the child.

The process of naming is important to pay attention to because oftentimes power is inherent. The words people rely on shape the way people think, and therefore have the potential to shape remedies if needed. Of course this process of word use as shaping our thinking includes elected Members of the House of Commons and appointed Senators who make up the Legislative Branch of the Government of Canada.

My point is that while INAC names their policy “unstated paternity”, it is best to understand the situation from within the lived reality of mothers where “unknown paternity”, “unrecognized paternity”, “unacknowledged paternity”, and “unnamed paternity” are more appropriate word choices.

As many know, recently INAC tabled Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act. This Bill was a response to a 2015 Quebec court decision by Justice Masse[3] in the Stéphane Descheneaux, and the Susan and Tammy Yantha case.[4] Although she was embarrassed about the lack of consultation with interested parties in the development of the Bill, the Minister of INAC, Carolyn Bennett, moved the Bill forward.[5]

In late November through early December 2016, interested parties had the opportunity to speak to members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs,[6]as well as to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.[7] Many of the parties such as Descheneaux, Sharon McIvor, the Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), and the Quebec Native Women Inc. were unhappy because of the lack of proper consultations where as a result the Bill failed to address all the sex discrimination in the Indian Act.

As it stands today, INAC has been granted an extension so proper consultations and reconsideration of the content of the Bill can occur.[8] Regardless, there was something rather peculiar I noticed as I listened to these House and Senate discussions specifically regarding the word choice when discussing the issue of unknown and unstated paternity. As many know I have been working on this very issue for over 31 years.

Perplexed and concerned with the word shifting process as I was I opted to complete an analysis of the language that interested parties, the Assistant Deputy Minister, the counsel for the Department of Justice, the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, and Senators relied upon when talking about the issue of “unknown and unstated paternity”.

When speaking with the House of Commons interested parties relied on the language of “unstated paternity”; “so-called unstated paternity”; “unknown paternity”; and “unacknowledged paternity”. This language correctly names the issue. Minister Bennett also relies on this language during these discussions.

When speaking with the Standing Senate Committee, INAC Assistant Deputy Minister Joëlle Montminy relied on the language of “undisclosed and unknown paternity”; and the lawyer for the Department of Justice Martin Reiher relied on “unknown parent” adding further, “which is usually an unknown father”. Bravo, like Minister Bennett they relied on language that closely represents the lived reality of Indigenous women; but this changed. See below and please pay close attention.

During these same Senate discussions interested parties, some of whom I mentioned above, relied on “unknown parents”, “unstated paternity”, and “other reasons for not identifying the father”; But one Senator, an important and potential ally relied on “unknown parent”. This is the beginning of the unfortunate language shift.

Again, a few days later during these same Senate discussions Montminy and Bennett now, in my opinion, more cognisant of their goal rely on “unstated paternity and parenthood” and “unnamed parent”. Unfortunately, the same Senator remained with using “unknown parentage”.

In sum, and my point is, the shift in language use during these important discussions from “unstated and unknown paternity” to the gender-neutral language of “unknown parentage” and “unnamed parent” was first introduced by the Minister and ADM of INAC, both of whom are guided by the goal of the need to eliminate status Indians. The danger of naming without critical thought is that it begins to shape the thinking of Members of Parliament and the Senators, potentially preventing them from understanding the sex discrimination that harms mothers and babies. It is really sad when women, mothers, and potential allies adopt the oppressor’s language as has happened during these discussions.

We must not allow the very people and organizations such as INAC who hold power over others to name reality in a way that is misleading and inadequate of the lived reality of oppressed people. I have come to know that sometimes gender-neutral language is just more of the same; more specifically, sometimes gender-neutral language is disguised patriarchy.

Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. Her book The Truth that wampum Tells: My Debwewin on the Algonquin Land Claims Process was published in 2014 with Fernwood. She has a new book coming out with University of Regina Press in the fall of 2017 called, Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.

[1] http://journals.sfu.ca/fpcfr/index.php/FPCFR/article/viewFile/187/204

[2] https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1334234251919/1334234281533

[3] http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2015/2015qccs3555/2015qccs3555.html

[4] http://www.dionneschulze.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-09-04_Lawyers-Weekly_Parliament-given-18-months-to-amend-Indian-Act.pdf

[5] https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/11/30/carolyn-bennett-admits-bill-to-change-indian-act-was-badly-handled.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgM9SKs7dLw

[6] http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/INAN/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=9201168

[7] https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/appa/studiesandbills/42-1

[8] http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/court-extension-update-indian-act-1.3953515

Perspectives on Surrogacy 3

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:38:00 +0000

In December of 2017 the Greenberg Chair in Women and the Legal Profession held a panel on surrogacy, where several prominent feminist lawyers and academics discussed their perspectives. A large number of University of Ottawa Faculty of Law students attended the event, and many blogged about it as part of an assignment in first year property law. Over the next few weeks this space will feature the diverse opinions of a number of our students.

In May 2017 uOttawa law Profs Angela Cameron and Vanessa Gruben along with their colleague Alana Cattapan of Dalhousie University will host a two-day workshop on the law and policy of surrogacy in Canada featuring national and international experts. Several uOttawa law students will participate in this event, and we will post their reactions to the workshop here.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Eman Jeddy*

Baby Mama Drama: What Canada can learn from California about Commercialized Surrogacy

Canadian surrogacy laws are confusing at best and incomplete at worst. What is clear is that altruistic surrogacy is legal but commercialized surrogacy isn’t. Under section 12 (s. 12) of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act 2004, a surrogate mother can be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses, but cannot be paid to carry a baby for someone else^{^[1]}. However, in the 12 years since the act was passed, Health Canada, the agency in charge of implementing the act, has yet to provide the regulations that define out-of-pocket expenses. The result is a legal grey area for intended parents, surrogate mothers, and third parties as to what costs can be legally reimbursed. The penalty for breaching s.12 can be as high as a 5-year imprisonment or a $250,000 fine^{^[2]}. In the absence of clarity regarding the law, the surrogacy community has developed a set of ad hoc standards over what costs are acceptable for reimbursement. Medical and clothing expenses are generally thought of as reimbursable, while lost wages veer too close to compensation. But even with these ad hoc standards in practices, parties remain vulnerable to prosecution. In 2013, Leia Picard, Director of Canadian Fertility Consulting, admitted to paying between $22,000-$26,000 to three women to be surrogate mothers and was fined $60,000. In the agreed statement of facts of her case was the following sentence: “Health Canada policy permits reimbursement to donors and surrogates of expenses and disbursements related to donation or surrogacy.”^{^[3]}However, some scholars disagree with this assertion, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, which states any sort of reimbursement cannot take place until Health Canada enacts regulations^{^[4]}.

There’s a second issue with surrogacy laws in Canada. Surrogacy agreements (or contracts) cannot be enforced in courts^{^[5]}. This has profound implications for all parties involved in the surrogacy process. Without the safety net of legal enforcement, parties are left vulnerable to breaches. For a surrogate mother, if the intended parents decide not to reimburse her for the costs they once promised to pay for, there is no legal recourse she can seek. Alternatively, if the intended parents change their mind about having the baby, no mechanism compels them to take parental responsibility. A child’s “legal mother” is the woman who gave birth to her, regardless of whether or not her egg was used to conceive the child^{^[6]}. The surrogate mother is forced to assume responsibility. The reverse of that situation can also occur. If a surrogate mother decides that she wants to keep a baby she carried to term, the intended parents cannot ask a court to compel her into specific performance. Under the current framework, or lack thereof, surrogacy arrangements rely completely on the good faith and honesty of the parties involved and the hope that no laws are broken in the process.

To reform the system, Canada should look to the U.S. state of California, one of the few places in the western hemisphere that has legalized commercial surrogacy. In California, only gestational carrier surrogacy – where a woman provides her womb and carries a child, biologically unrelated to her, to full-term – can be contracted for. Under state law, a surrogate mother is not recognized as having parental rights since she is not biologically related to the baby. The courts therefore hold consideration valid in gestational surrogacy contracts because the benefit to the surrogate is compensation “for her services in gestating the fetus and undergoing labor, rather than giving up ‘parental’ rights to the child.”^{^[7]}This model not only protects both parties’ interests but also provides a better framework for what costs can and cannot be covered in a surrogacy agreement. Furthermore, under the Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act 2013, the legal parents must be established prior to the child’s birth in a parentage action delivered to a county court.^{^[8]}Brought to Canada, this kind of law would eliminate the issues around surrogacy that currently exist. The California act also requires the intended parents and the surrogate be represented by separate council, limiting the possibility of exploitation that is inherently present in a surrogacy agreement. As a result, California enjoys a clear and regulated surrogacy industry that provides children for intended parents and upwards of $100,000 for surrogate mothers. It’s time for Canada to follow suit and provide a well-defined system that protects, rather than ignores, consenting parties looking to exchange services.

Eman Jeddy is a first year common law student at UOttawa.

^{^[1]} Bill C-6, Assisted Human Reproduction Act, 3rd Sess, 37th Parl, 2004, cl 12.

^{^[2]} Jocelyn Downie & Françoise Baylis, “Transnational Trade in Human Eggs: Law, Policy, and (In) Action in Canada” (2013) 40:1 J L Medicine & Ethics 224 at 228 [Baylis. “Transactional Trade”]

^{^[3]} Françoise Baylis, Jocelyn Downie & Dave Snow, “Fake it Till You Make it: Policymaking and Assisted Human Reproduction in Canada” (2014) 36:1 J Obstetrics & Gynecology Can 510 at 511.

^{^[4]} Ibid.

^{^[5]} Susan G Drummond, “Fruitful Diversity: Revisiting the Enforceability of Gestational Carriage Contracts” (2013) Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Working Paper No 25/2013.

^{^[6]} Ibid.

^{^[7]} Jennifer Jackson “California Egg Toss: The High Costs of Avoiding Unenforceable Surrogacy Contracts” (2005) 15:2 J High Technology L 230 at 243.

^{^[8]} Richard Vaughan, “California Surrogacy Law Takes Effect Jan. 1” International Fertility Law Group (26 Nov 2012), online: <https://www.iflg.net/california-surrogacy-law-to-take-effect-jan-1/>.

Perspectives on Surrogacy 2

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 19:11:00 +0000

Emmett Brownscombe

The Fears about the Unreliable Stork are Overstated: The All Families are Equal Act and the Enforceability of Surrogacy Agreements

In an attempt to respond to the rising public demand for an injection of legislative clarity into the murky legal waters surrounding surrogacy, the Ontario government has enacted the All Families are Equal Act (AFEA). The act has been celebrated as an effort to limit discrimination against the rising number of families who use surrogacy to have children, but there are some membersof the fertility law community who are concerned that the act may create more problems than it solves.[1]

One provision of the act garnering criticism is the declaration that all surrogacy agreements are unenforceable. The decision is likely the product of a well-intentioned desire to respect a surrogate mother’s bodily autonomy by affording her the final say over what will happen to the child she births.[2]Surrogacy agreements often place significant restrictions on the freedom of the surrogate during the nine months that she carries the child.[3]With this in mind, it is understandable that there is hesitancy to combine uncomfortably restrictive contractual terms with a rigid legal standard of enforceability. However, critics of the new legislation fear that it will put the parties of a surrogacy contract in an even more precarious legal position.

The issue stems from the AFEA’s disregard of the important distinction between traditional and gestational surrogacy. Traditional surrogacy occurs when the surrogate mother is genetically connected to the baby she is carrying.[4]The far more common type of surrogacy is gestational, where the surrogate has no genetic connection to the child.

Historically, the courts have not viewed agreements in relation to traditional surrogacy as enforceable. There has been an understandable unwillingness to enforce a contract that may force a mother to surrender a child she has a genetic connection with. Courts have been much more comfortable enforcing gestational carriage arrangements. However, the AFEA’s declaration that all surrogacy contracts are now unenforceable has given rise to a fear that the participants in a gestational surrogacy are at a greater risk of being denied parental control of a child with whom they are genetically connected. Theoretically, a surrogate mother may also be placed in the position of parenting a child she has no genetic relationship with should the intended parents change their mind.

However, there is good reason to believe that the feared consequences of the AFEA will likely never come to fruition. The declaration that all surrogacy contracts are unenforceable does not leave the parties without any legal recourse. The Act does allow for surrogacy contracts to be used as evidence of intention in any potential parentage dispute.[5]Another important element of the AFEA is that it requires a court to consider the best interests of the child when making a decision regarding parentage.[6]The combination of these two provisions suggests that the genetic parents of the child would be far more likely to be awarded parentage should a legal dispute arise.

The case law in Ontario relating to surrogacy also suggests that the genetic connection would likely be given priority in any legal dispute. In M.D. et al v L.L et al — a 2008 surrogacy case in which the genetic parents of the child sought a declaration of parentage — the Ontario Superior Court of Justice relied heavily on the terms of the gestational carriage arrangement, a contract which neither party disputed in the case.[7]The court said that genetic testing would be an appropriate tool to determine parentage in cases where the gestational carriage arrangement is under dispute.[8]This affirmed the Court’s earlier decision in J.R. et al v L.H. et al, a case in which genetic testing was conducted in support of a finding of parentage.[9]The Ontario Superior Court’s receptivity to genetic testing suggests that a situation in which an intended parent is denied parentage of their genetic offspring is unlikely to occur.

Although the AFEA’s declaration regarding the enforceability of surrogacy agreements has raised plenty of eyebrows, the combination of some of the other provisions of the Act and the Ontario case law regarding surrogacy suggests that the legal security of genetic parents is not as compromised as some critics of the Act would have you believe.

Emmett Brownscombe is a first law student at the University of Ottawa. He is from Peterborough, Ontario, and hopes to one day practice criminal law

^{^[1]} Sara R Cohen, “The All Families are Equal Act is Problematic for Surrogacy in Ontario. Here’s Why” (5 September 2016), Fertility Law Canada (blog), < http://www.fertilitylawcanada.com/fertility-law-canada-blog/the-all-families-are-equal-act-is-problematic-for-surrogacy-in-ontario-heres-why >.

^{^[2]} Karen Busby, “Of Surrogate Mother Born: Parentage Determinations in Canada and Elsewhere” (2013) 25: 2 CJWL 285 at 303. HYPERLINK

^{^[3]} Erin Lepine, “Reproductive Labour? The Law and Policy of Surrogacy” (16 November 2016), online: YouTube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dpfp--_cXoQ >.

^{^[4]} Dave Snow, “Measuring Parentage Policy in the Canadian Provinces: A Comparative Framework” (2016) 59:1 Can Pub Administration 5 at 9. HYPERLINK

^{^[5]} All Families are Equal Act, SO 2016, c C-23, s 10 (9). HYPERLINK

^{^[6]} Ibid at s 10 (8).

^{^[7]} MD et al v LL et al, [2008] 90 OR (3d) 127. HYPERLINK

^{^[8]} Ibid at para 47.

^{^[9]} JR et al v LH et al, [2002] OJ 3998. HYPERLINK

No Half Measures: Why Canadian Police Services Must Implement the Philadelphia Model to Improve Handling of Sexual Assault Cases

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:57:00 +0000

Elizabeth Sheehy & Teresa Scassa

In her hugely important Unfoundedseries, which began appearing in early February in the Globe and Mail, investigative reporter Robyn Doolittle has meticulously documented what front line sexual assault support workers have known for a long time – that there are deep systemic issues with the way in which police across Canada investigate sexual assaults, and that sexual assault statistics, rather than shedding light on the incidence of sexual assault in Canada, can be used to “disappear” these assaults from the public record.

The Unfounded series lends considerable new support for what advocates have been seeking for some time now – the introduction of the gold-standard Philadelphia model to provide transparency and oversight around sexual assault investigations and ultimately to address and correct systemic deficiencies. Not surprisingly, the Philadelphia model also owes its origins to investigative journalism. It was detailed reporting in the Philadelphia Inquirer of the unfounding of serious sexual assault complaints that provided the impetus needed to push the Philadelphia Police Service to change its approach.

The Philadelphia model involves regular meetings between police officials and civilian experts – often front-line sexual assault workers. The team reviews all files classified as “unfounded” as well as other selected files in order to determine whether the classifications were appropriate, or whether further investigation is warranted. In the process, systemic problems are identified and addressed, improving the overall practices of the force. The model has been a success in Philadelphia and has been adopted by a growing number of police services in the United States.

Robyn Doolittle’s Unfounded series has attracted attention from provincial and federal politicians and has led a number of police services to indicate that they will take steps to improve their handling of sexual assault complaints. However, we are concerned that these steps may fall short of implementing the Philadelphia model. At their worst, they may simply be an exercise in semantics, leading to the reclassification of cases that were once unfounded as ones for which there is “insufficient evidence”. Further, we are concerned that privacy law may be asserted as a reason for not moving forward with the Philadelphia model. While the privacy of women who have been sexually assaulted is fundamentally important, it is misleading to suggest that the Philadelphia model would run afoul of privacy laws. The Philadelphia model treats those involved in case reviews as consultants and subjects them to the associated rigorous confidentiality requirements.

Our op-ed, published today in the Globe and Mail raises our concerns about measures that fall short of what is clearly the gold standard. The Philadelphia Model is not a half-measure, it is a game changer – and this is clearly what is needed across Canada.

Perspectives on Surrogacy

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:28:00 +0000

Raven Schofield

1-800-RENT-A-WOMB: Evaluating the Effects of Commercialized Surrogacy

There are always two sides to every story, and surrogacy is not exempt from this rule. On one hand, many, such as family and fertility lawyer Erin Lepine and family and equality rights lawyer Pam MacEachern, argue that commercialized surrogacy unfairly targets those who are economically depressed, or oppressed minority groups who resort to surrogacy services as a way to provide for themselves and their families. On the other side, individuals such as Professor of Global Health and Social Medicine, Bronwyn Parry, argue that, while it can be, surrogacy is not always inherently or exceptionally exploitative and the commodification of other forms of affective labour already exists. The question then becomes, is the commodification of maternal labour any different than all other forms of compensated labour? Should the spheres of intimate relations and economic activity continue to operate in separate domains? I am inclined to answer these questions in the affirmative.

The Canadian federal government passed the Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHRA) in 2004, which states that “no person shall pay consideration to a female person to be a surrogate mother, offer to pay such consideration or advertise that it will be paid.” The rationale for allowing only altruistic surrogacies to operate in Canada is rooted in a desire to protect Canadian women from being unnecessarily objectified and exploited. That is, that many low-income women would result to providing surrogacy services out of economic necessity, and not out of an inherent desire to provide these services. However, since the enactment of the AHRA, many feminists have struggled with the AHRA’s capabilities in balancing women’s rights to their bodies, their autonomy to choose, their freedom from exploitation, and the rights of same-sex couples to reproduce. Thus, the debate of commercialized versus altruistic surrogacy continues on.

Sara Cohen, a Canadian fertility law lawyer, argues that the AHRA is paternalistic and offensive, as most women acting as surrogates are altruistic, self-sufficient and independent thinkers, and not the helpless, marginalized women the AHRA and thus the federal government has painted these women out to be. However, Professor Somerville from McGill’s Faculty of Law holds that the commercialization of surrogacy violates women’s rights and leads to the commodification and exploitation of underprivileged women’s bodies, who often are unable to give informed consent. Since commercialized surrogacy is such a complicated and contentious issue, similar arguments continue to exist in multitudes on both sides of the debate. However, as previously alluded to, I am against the commercialization of women’s bodies through surrogacy.

Many men, women, and same sex couples struggle with fertility issues on a daily basis. While being childless is a heartbreaking outcome for many couples, a woman’s rights to human dignity and protection from commodification of her body vastly outweighs a couple’s rights to a child. In fact, I do not even believe having a child is a guaranteed right. The unpleasant effects of commercialized surrogacy have already reared their heads in countries which have legalized payment for these services. The Akanksha Clinic in Gujarat, India is comprised of ten to fifteen surrogate mothers, living in one room together within the clinic for a majority of their pregnancy. The clinic even advertisessurrogacy to women as a good means to earn money for their child’s education or to purchase a house, preying on their weak financial positions and social vulnerability.

Women are already more likelyto be or become impoverished than men are, and minority and racialized women are at even more of an economic disadvantage than that of white women. The commercialization of surrogacy would disproportionally target marginalized women and create a tier of second-class citizenry, furthering the economic and racial divide in Canada. Furthermore, the surrogate mother will always be in a lower bargaining position than the adopting parents and, even though she is being compensated for her labour, is still at further risk for exploitation and providing uninformed consent.

While the current model of altruistic surrogacy in Canada is not free of difficulties—for example, the definition of what counts as a receiptable expense is still contested—the commercialization of surrogacy services poses much greater complications. Simply because the payment for surrogacy services is not always exploitative, does not mean that it should not be regulated or banned. There are many activities which are not inherently dangerous, or not abused by the general public, however, because of instances where individuals have created a danger to themselves or others in performing those activities, the government has chosen to regulate them. This justification is no different when applied to surrogacy. While women should be free to choose how they use or consent to the use of their bodies, Canadian laws must protect those women who are unable to give informed consent or make an autonomous choice due to lack of options and financial insecurity. Currently, the only way to protect against this exploitation is through the complete ban of commercialized surrogacy.

Raven Schofield is a first year law student from Brantford, ON and is interested in pursuing a career in criminal law.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Heather Cross

Leaving the ‘Dignity of Womanhood’ to Women: Protecting a Surrogate’s Interests Without Limiting her Agency

In 2015, the Indian Supreme Courtquestioned the government’s position on the “Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill” released by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Among a variety of ethical, legal, and socio-economic questions, the Supreme Court asked whether commercial surrogacy is “inconsistent with the dignity of womanhood.” This notion draws parallels to the implications seen in Canada’s own Assisted Human Reproduction Act(AHRA), where the principle of banning commercial surrogacy is justified because it protects against health and ethical concerns that may arise through the commercialization and exploitation of reproductive capabilities (s.2(f)). While some may perceive it as inherent exploitation, the AHRA, in its current form, limits the agency that women have in exercising their rights over their reproductive choices.

By defining, and prohibiting, acts that do not uphold the dignity of women, the choice of what is considered “dignified” is no longer left to the person whose dignity the law is trying to defend. The statute assumingly suggests in what capacity a woman can use her reproductive capabilities. More specifically, that it is not in a woman’s best interest to use her body in an economic capacity due to the inherent exploitation she may suffer in performing surrogacy labour. By prohibiting a commercial value to be drawn from the work, the legislature is deciding what women are allowed and not allowed to do with their bodies, for their “own good.”

Canada’s desire to limit surrogacy to an altruistic deed strips a woman of her corporeal agency and implies that women do not always know what is best for them. In a recent panel discussion on the issues of surrogacy, Bronwyn Parry discussed the notion of “philanthropic labour.” She brings agency into the equation by discussing the motivations that underlie the choices surrogates often make. Parry suggests that the assumption of exploitation strips surrogates of their ability to be social benefactors for another human being.

In her article, “Mutual exploitation”, Beth Jones argues that there exists a desirable level of mutual exploitation in the relationship between the surrogate and intended-parents. She states that in her experience, “any construed exploitation done against [her] was equally matched” by what she gained from the process. This does not necessarily mean that women always benefit from their surrogacy situations; however, it also does not translate into inherent exploitation in all surrogacy agreements. Studies conducted in the United States and Great Britain, where commercial surrogacy is legal, reveal no evidence indicating that women are being pressured or forced into surrogacy. There is also no evidence of women agreeing to become surrogates due to financial distress.

Darren Rosenblum, a law professor at Yale University, published an article in which he uses his personal experience with surrogacy to summarize the benefits and drawbacks of using a surrogate. He addresses the concern of exploitation by stating that it is economic fragility that leaves women vulnerable to exploitation, not the nature of the surrogate work. Furthermore, he postulates that the argument of potential class exploitation is no truer for surrogacy than it would be for other forms of laboured work. Similarly, Parry suggests that it is the “mechanics of the practice” that create space for exploitation, not the principle behind surrogacy itself. She suggests that the harm stems from the lack of regulation, rather than the nature of the labour.

In its current form, the AHRA only permits surrogates to use their reproductive capabilities in an altruistic manner, with very little protection afforded to the surrogate mother. Stronger regulation of the process and expectations of each party would increase the protection offered by the AHRA. Rather than protecting a surrogate’s “dignity” by banning commercial surrogacy altogether, more stringent regulations would potentially protect, without overly limiting, a woman’s agency in using her reproductive capabilities.

Heather Cross is a first year law student at the University of Ottawa in the common law program. She is from Montreal, Quebec and hopes to pursue a career in international commercial law.

uOttawa law students solidarity event Wed. Feb. 8th

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 16:14:00 +0000

Solidarity event

Alex Trebeck Hall, University of Ottawa, 5:30 pm to 8 pm

On Wednesday, February 8^th, students, professors, and staff will join together for a night of solidarity in response to the Quebec City Mosque Shooting and the Immigration Ban south of the border. UOttawa law is home to people of all cultures, religions, and identities, which we commit to protecting and respecting every day. This event is meant to inform participants of the different issues and consequences of these events in a safe environment. This event is an official launch of several solidarity initiatives UOttawa student organizations have been planning since our return from the break.

We are also setting up a donation booth; all proceeds will go to the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre and the International Refugee Assistance Project. We will have laptops set up in case you would like to donate with with a credit/debit card.

Itinerary:

* Introductory Remarks

* Group huddles or break-out sessions with specific professors and students aimed to generate discussion around particular issues arising from these events

* Musical performances from our professors

Sandwiches, wraps, cookies, and non-alcoholic beverages will be served

We will be setting up a photobooth with whiteboards for those who wish to campaign online. We ask that you hashtag #uosolidarity.

Reproductive Labour? Perspectives on the law, policy and practice of surrogacy

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 16:40:00 +0000

On November 14th, 2016, the Greenberg Chair in Women and the Legal Profession at the Faculty of Law, and the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics, University of Ottawa, was proud to present a panel featuring a variety of perspectives on law, policy and practice of surrogacy in an international context.

The panel featured Prof. Bronwyn Parry, of the Faculty of Global Health and Social Medicine at King's College London, Pam McEachern, lawyer at Nelligan, O'Brian, Payne LLP ( family and human rights law) and Erin LePine, lawyer at Nelligan, O'Brian, Payne LLP ( family and fertility law).

Both a podcast and a transcript are available here.

A Letter to Our Friends on Both Sides of the Border

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 17:28:00 +0000

To The Parties Affected by the Recent Wave of Hate Crimes and Ignorance,

First, I send you greetings from a fellow North American who shares the shock, the pain and the hurt has resulted from the recent U.S. Election for many groups. I also acknowledge the pain and frustration that those who have suffered at the hands of hateful individuals who have decided to emerge from hiding and reek terror on the good people of our cities, whether here in Ottawa or beyond our borders.

There are some things in life we cannot explain. At this time, it's easy to sink into the dark recesses of fear and be prepared to expect the worst in human beings. It’s natural to feel as though you’re now in a world where every stake that could’ve been uprooted has been hammered in tighter while even more are driven into the ground of your path in life. It’s easy to feel alone when it seems as though people have turned against you, have turned their backs on basic, human decency. You feel isolated, scared, fearful, depressed, even angry. You feel as though your friends will call you crazy for letting these things get to you; that your parents will say to worry about what you can change; that your significant other will slowly begin to distance themselves from you because you’re not the same person you were before these things happened.

But you’re forgetting something.

You’re not alone.

To the minorities who fear having their race be the only judge of their character,

Your ownership and stake in this land has not been diminished by the amount of melanin in your skin. Your accomplishments have shaped the nation and the world so profoundly that no one can erase you from history. Your blood, sweat and tears have formed the foundation for laws and principles of oneness and equality that no executive order can overturn. Your cultural uniqueness is an asset, not a burden. You are not alone.

To the women of the country who fear being shackled by sexism,

Your worth can never be summed up by your measurements. Your potential doesn’t depend on how many likes your Instagram photos get. Your power does not come from a man’s permission to lead, but your God-given right to rule like the queen you are. Your integrity is not for sale because you are not an object. Your intelligence is not a question because it is often the answer. Your voice is not nagging, it’s you saying, “I want something better.” You are not alone.

To the religious groups who fear being targeted because of their faith,

Our faiths may differ, but the bonds of humanity we share can never be severed by differences in doctrines. Our practices may be different, but our shared love for human kind is one that transcends those things that spark contentions between us. We know what it is like to have extremists deface the principles of our faith and mislead people about the character of our God. We know what it is like to have people believe that a minority of ignorant, hateful individuals who believe that perverting Holy Scripture to suit political agendas, speak for all of us, who pretend that their actions don’t break the heart of a divine, loving God, whatever name we choose to call Him. You are not alone.

To the members of the LGBTQ+ community who fear being persecuted for their sexual orientation,

Who you love, how you identify, is none of our business. How we treat you is everyone’s concern. Your lives have been open books that some people wish were closed. They fear the confidence you have to live as you are because they wear masks to hide who they are. Your humanity is not determined by who you love, how you identify yourself or even how you live your lives. You are not alone.

To the immigrant families and communities who fear being deported,

Your place is right here with us. Your sacrifices are so bound up in the fabric of this country, your diverse experiences and skills so essential to the essence of what has made this nation already great, that to tear you out of it would be tantamount to tearing out a chunk of our soul. Your children are our children, your families are our families, and your home is where the hearts of all citizens of the country lie: in the soil of the land you are standing on. You are not alone.

Anyone who tells you to hate your brother because he prays to a different God, pray for them because they know not what they do or what they say. Anyone who says that being a certain skin colour makes you inferior, show them where the Founding Fathers declared in the document that gave America its freedom that ALL men and women are created equal. Anyone who believes that a woman is nothing more than a rating given to her by a man-child, remind them that royalty doesn’t need outside consultation on whether their pedigree is good enough to sit on the throne and rule. Anyone who allows for hatred to thrive against people who are of a different sexual orientation, who wants to treat them as though they’re second-class citizens in a first-world country, enlighten them to the fact that human beings deserve respect and equal treatment, no exceptions.

Politics may shape a country, but it is the individual citizens who choose if they will be defined by it. And time after time, in the face of adversity, we have always stood together, whether we be Canadians or Americans. Because we all know as I do that our people who are hurting right now, who need our support and our protection, are not alone. There will always be others who share your views, individuals who support your dreams and your visions, communities of all faiths, races, and orientations who want to see your hopes bear fruit.

YOU. ARE. NEVER. ALONE.

And when individuals challenge you, if they want to stand in your way, if they dare you to make them move out of your way on the road to progress, your response…

Is not anger.

Is not guns.

Is not cynicism.

Is not violence.

Is not God-blaming.

Is not victim-shaming.

Is not establishment berating.

It’s nothing more than a smile and nine words.

“If we can move mountains, we can move you.”

Krystene Robinson is a first year law student at the University of Ottawa in the JD/MA program. She is from Markham, Ontario and desires to pursue a career in international criminal law.

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:50:00 +0000

The Greenberg Chair in Women and the Legal Profession was thrilled to host Dr. Carys Craig on Wednesday, Sept. 21st, 2016. She delivered a talk entitled "A Feminist Copyright Agenda:
Open Access, Attribution & the Academy". You can find the transcript of this thought provoking talk here and the podcast here.

The 2016 Indigenous Bar Association Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:28:00 +0000

By: Beth Kotierk

The 2016 Indigenous Bar Association Conference entitled “Redefining Relationships: With or Without You” was hosted in Musqueam Territory. There was a record-breaking student count at this year’s conference, which created a particular energy in the air - one that was forward-thinking and hopeful.

In our corner of the legal profession, women seem to outnumber the men and being surrounded by so many successful and inspiring Indigenous women was a rare and special experience. Looking around the conference, you could see distinguished and influential Indigenous lawyers and advocates. A deep respect for the work that has been done, and continues to be done by these individuals emerges as you navigate the conference and catch glimpses of their laughs and conversations.

The conference was filled with speakers that inspired and motivated like Senator Murray Sinclair, Jeffrey Hewitt, Dr. Val Napoleon, Dr. Tracy Lindberg, Tanya Kappo, and Jean Teillet. All speakers spoke so eloquently - from their hearts - encouraging us all to remain critical and compassionate.

A common message of many of the speakers was to remember to love your communities more than you love yourself; a humble and powerful request of us. These tugs of responsibility and obligations, depending on your discipline, are overwhelming in isolation. Our ability to gather together and talk about culture, histories and current issues affecting our communities revealed the passion and pain of legal pursuits.

Val Napoleon, an absolute idol, was awarded the Annual IBA award this year at the gala. Val Napoleon was honoured by traditional Musqueam dancers and drummers; the ceremony was the most moving and beautiful honouring I have seen in a long time. I have a deep respect for this phenomenal leader and woman. A sense of joy, encouragement and connectedness filled the room during the gala, thinking about how far Indigenous peoples have come in our common struggle with the Canadian government; to be recognized and respected as nations.

Attending the conference provided us the opportunity to imagine what the future holds.This is only possible through the hard work of our community members and our women. Qujannamiik to the Indigenous Bar Association for being a revitalizing experience and support network for so many Indigenous women and female-identified Indigenous people.

Beth Kotierk is the daughter of Apayata and Juliet Kotierk from Igloolik, Nunavut. She is currently in her second year of law school at the University of Ottawa.