Blogging for Equality

Canada’s Reformed Refugee System Plays Russian Roulette with the Lives of Claimants

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 13 May 2013 21:39:00 +0000

By Nazareth Yirgalem*

Canada’s Reformed Refugee System Plays Russian Roulette with the Lives of Claimants

The federal Designated Countries of Origin (DCO) program places refugees fleeing gender-based violence at an increased risk of persecution, and perhaps death. By categorically identifying certain countries as “safe” without engaging in a contextual analysis of how such countries treat all citizens, the DCO program obscures the persecution experienced by battered women, queer folks and trans people within these nations. The harrowing result will likely be that sexual and gender minorities from DCO countries will be denied status and sent back to confront violence, cruel and usual punishment and possibly, death.
The DCO structure was implemented by the Conservative government in December 2012. To date, the program has inducted 35 countries, mostly nations from the European Union in addition to the United States and Mexico. The Harper government introduced the program as part of a larger legislative scheme designed to reduce “bogus” refugee claims.

Admittedly, there are illegitimate claims made by refugees in Canada. Also, it is understandable that the federal government would want to implement a legislative scheme to weed out dishonest claims. The use of indiscriminate mechanisms to identify who is a “legitimate” refugee however is like playing Russian roulette with the lives of claimants: the system may be successful in excising some fraudulent claims, but it may also send a claimant back to their persecutor.

Of particular concern is the exclusive power given to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (“Minister”) to ascertain which countries should be given DCO status. Under the reformed Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Minister is empowered to designate a nation as “safe” without consulting with human rights experts. Instead, the federal government has communicated that Minister Jason Kenney can unilaterally make this decision in one of two ways. He can either use general benchmarks relating to the rate of acceptance from a given nation or he can conclude that a country is “safe” based on his opinion of its human rights and democratic record.[1]

The flaw with both approaches is that they ignore the possibility that a country may demonstrate a low acceptance rate and/or have democratic laws, but still fail to provide adequate protection for all of their citizens. Consider Mexico, a democratic nation on the DCO list, which has made strides in recognizing the legal rights of the queer community including legalizing same-sex marriages in 2009. However, Inter Pres Service notes that there is still a "culture of homophobia within the Federal District government apparatus."[2]

This climate of homophobia is reflected in society and serves to endanger the safety and lives of sexual minorities. The US Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2011 reports that the organizer of Mexico City’s LGBT Pride Parade who was also a member of the Revolutionary Democratic Party's Coordinating Group for Sexual Diversity was stabbed to death in Mexico City.[3] Furthermore, a federal human rights commission in Mexico counted 57 human rights violations from sexual minorities from January 2011 to July 2012.[4] Based on this research, Mexico’s status as a “safe” country for sexual minorities is certainly questionable.

The procedural consequences of this legislative reform are also causing practitioners and community workers tremendous concern. All persons who claim refugee status at the port-of-entry now have 15 days to submit required and supporting documentation instead of 28. Moreover, Claimants from DCO nations now have 30 days to prepare before their hearing if they make a claim at an immigration office and 45 if they claim at port-of-entry compared to 90 days under the old system.[5]

It is true that assembling the documentation and oral testimony of refugee claimants
is difficult under most time frames. The timelines for claimants from DCO countries though, is impractical and bordering on unconscionable. Specifically, the time frames do not allow claimants to sufficient time to exercise their right to counsel. This reality may be exacerbated if Legal Aid Ontario’s proposal to cut free legal representation at Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) hearings for DCO claimants is accepted by the Ontario government.

However, even if a claimant is able to retain a lawyer, under the new timelines lawyers do not have enough time to build the trust required to extract relevant evidence from a traumatized claimant. A Vancouver-based refugee law practitioner has said the following about how the issue of trust is likely to be affected under the expedited refugee system:

No matter how friendly or well-trained officials from the IRB are in asking questions of claimants, trust is something that takes time to build. I have never been able to get an accurate picture of the narrative of a refugee claim in one sitting with a claimant. This is particularly the case with women who have experienced violence. In many cases that I have worked on I only learn about some of the most horrific acts of violence in my third or fourth time speaking to the claimant...[6]

A hopeful repercussion of the erosion of the procedural rights of claimants from DCO nations is that it has inspired a generation of law students like me to politically engage with the legal issues affecting refugees. Learning from fierce refugee law advocates like Professor Showler at the University of Ottawa, we are sure to make a rebellious and progressive difference in the realm of refugee law.

* A recent graduate of the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa.

[1]Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), RSC 2001, c 27 (as amended) s 102.

[2]Daniela Pastrana, "Mexico: Institutionalised Homophobia Encourages Hate Crimes" Inter Pres Service (12 April 2012) online: Ref World <http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=50753f172&skip=0&query=LGBT&coi=MEX>.

[3]US, Department of State, Mexico: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011: Mexico (24 May 2012) online: US Department of State <http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/#wrapper>.

[4]Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Mexico: Situation of sexual minorities in Mexico City, Guadalajara (Jalisco) and Puerto Vallarta (Jalisco); whether there are support or advocacy groups acting on their behalf (2009 - August 2012), 17 September 2012, MEX104173.E, online: http://www.refworld.org/docid/50753f172.html.

[5]IRPA (as amended) s 159.9(1)(a).

[6]Lobat Sadrehashemi, “Gender Persecution and Refugee Law in Canada: In Response to the Balanced Refugee Reform Act (Bill C-11)” (April 2011) online: Battered Women’s Support Services http://www.bwss.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/GENDER-PERSECUTION-and-REFUGEE-LAW-REFORM-IN-CANADA_2.pdf.

Family Law Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:12:00 +0000

By: Liz Majic*

An as-yet unreleased report to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is urging an overhaul of the family law system.

The Globe and Mail has reported that it recently obtained a copy of the report, which is authored by a committee headed by Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cromwell, and is set for release very soon. According to the Globe, the report proposes several structural changes to the family legal system. The recommendations seek to minimize the personal and financial costs of resolving family disputes. Indeed, long and drawn out battles over custody, spousal support, and property can exacerbate tension between former spouses, and increase expense.

The report recommends strategies such as streamlining the family law process, designating more judges with expertise in family law, and empowering court personnel to help self-represented litigants. Additionally, the report recommends that estranged spouses attend one session with a qualified mediator before they are permitted to trial, and that “painful” cost awards be imposed against litigants who behave badly or impede the settlement process.

There is no doubt that these recommendations, if implemented, would go a long way towards improving the family legal system. However, like many other reports pertaining to access to justice, this report leaves one to wonder whether its recommendations will address the needs of those who are most vulnerable in family legal disputes: women survivors of violence.

Abused women are at greater risk of experiencing serious physical and psychological impacts as a result of their legal problems. Despite the severity of their situations and the fact that they tend to be disproportionately lower income – even more so following separation – many abused women still do not qualify for legal aid services. Consequently, many are left with no choice but to navigate the legal system unrepresented. Those who opt to retain legal counsel must endure the financial burden of exorbitant legal fees.

The repercussions of being unrepresented are great. It is not uncommon for an unrepresented abused woman to capitulate to her partner’s demands - no matter how unreasonable they may be. For instance, she may decide to make concessions that are not in her best interests or those of her children, such as accepting a joint custody or relaxed access arrangement.

Conceding to or being granted a joint custody order, or a liberal access order, creates years of difficulty for a woman whose abusive partner is intent on maintaining control over her. Abusive men can use such arrangements as an opportunity to harass, intimidate, and physically assault their ex-partner. As a result, children may continue to be exposed to violence either by witnessing it, or by being involved directly in the conflict.[1]

A number of factors contribute to a woman’s inability to assert her interests in legal proceedings. She may be intimidated by her partner and his lawyer, or worried about the perceived threat of her partner’s retaliation. The financial impact of pursuing legal action can also be a deterrent, along with the potential risk of harm to her children. Furthermore, the phenomenon of legal bullying is prevalent in domestic violence cases. The abusive male partner can simply opt to pursue the matter through the courts until the woman’s resources are exhausted.

Although mediation, expert judges, and additional court support for self-represented litigants are undoubtedly useful resources for family law litigants, such solutions may not reach women who are fleeing domestic abuse. Rather, literature on domestic violence consistently shows that women survivors of violence must have a fundamental right to accessible and readily available legal representation.

Domestic violence cases raise complex issues that cannot be dealt with in the absence of counsel if a fair hearing is to take place. As a report by Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre notes,

Woman abuse survivors and their children are severely disadvantaged when they do not have adequate legal representation, especially in the current climate that emphasizes mediation and shared parenting. Women who are unrepresented must complete complex paperwork and negotiations without a foundation of legal knowledge, often in the presence of the abuser and while dealing with fear, change and transition for themselves and their children.[2]

Ensuring that women survivors of violence have access to legal support will require a financial commitment from government. As reported by the Globe, the report calls for a drastic increase in funding for legal aid in the area of family law. But it remains to be seen whether the provincial and federal governments respond. If they fail to act, then Charter-based claims for publicly funded legal representation where domestic violence has been alleged should be considered by members of the legal community.

On a final note, the report apparently also calls on lawyers and law schools to embrace a culture of mediation, and encourages law schools to stop minimizing the importance of family law in their curricula. I wholeheartedly agree that family law is as essential as other foundational law courses like torts and criminal law. However, I believe that educating and training future lawyers on domestic violence, in particular, is equally crucial. Women survivors of violence should be entitled not only to legal representation, but to effective legal representation. By this, I mean a lawyer who understands the complex dynamics of domestic violence, is sensitive to the needs of their clients, and ideally provides legal services from an anti-racist and anti-oppressive framework.

As far as I am aware, domestic violence and the law is not an integral component of the curriculum at most Canadian law schools. The topic is usually given a cursory nod and then brushed away in family law classes. Law schools’ inattention to domestic violence does a disservice to women survivors of violence and to future family law lawyers, who will have very minimal, if any, training in dealing with a client who has experienced abuse.

A failure to address the experiences of those who are most vulnerable in family legal disputes exposes women survivors of violence to the risk of continued abuse in domestic relationships; impairs their equality and dignity; and threatens their physical and psychological security and that of their children. As we anticipate the release of the report to the Chief Justice, I encourage you to consider whether its recommendations provide for effective and accessible legal representation for women survivors of violence. Anything less is unjust and unacceptable.

*Liz Majic is in her final year of law school at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law. She is currently participating in a student-run seminar on gender-based violence and the law.

[1] For a comprehensive analysis of the challenges abused women encounter in the family legal system, please see: Ontario Victim Services Secretariat, Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis for Abused Women Unrepresented in the Family Law System, online: Luke’s Place < http://www.lukesplace.ca/research.htm>.

[2] Ibid at 2.

Uottawa Law's OutLaws oppose TWU law school

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:51:00 +0000

The ever amazing OutLaws have crafted a letter opposing the proposed law school at Trinity Western University.

For more background see this earlier post on our very own blog.

Our Very Own Prof. Joanne St. Lewis

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:28:00 +0000

Recently our colleague, Prof. Joanne St. Lewis, won an important legal victory against racism. Congratulations!

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HATE SPEECH: THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN WHATCOTT

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 21:26:00 +0000

Prof. Michelle Flaherty*

In its recent decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott. 2013 SCC 11, the Supreme Court of Canada contended with a series of competing rights: freedom expression and freedom of religion, on the one hand, and the potential hateful and discriminatory effects of the exercise of those freedoms on the equality rights of others. Ultimately, the Supreme Court tried to strike a balance, one that offered some level of protection for equality rights and allowed for the restriction of only very extreme forms of expression.

Mr. Whatcott, the respondent in the case, had disseminated flyers in Saskatoon and Regina. The flyers prothelesized against homosexuality, particularly among educators in public schools. They also included disparaging remarks about homosexuality.

Some of the individuals who received Mr. Whatcott’s flyers filed complaints against him under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c. S 24.1 (“Code”). Section 14 of the Code states that no person shall publish or display any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.” The complainants argued that Mr. Whatcott’s flyers were discriminatory and violated the s. 14 of the Code because they exposed persons to hatred and ridicule on the basis of a prohibited ground, their sexual orientation. Mr. Whatcott, however, argued that s. 14 of the Code was unconstitutional and invalid because it interfered with his freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Squarely at issue before the Court, as it tried to balance these competing rights, was whether and to what extent expression and religious freedoms can be restricted. More specifically, the Court had to consider whether and how to distinguish between hate speech and less extreme forms of expression, which may fall short of “hate”, although they ridicule, belittle or affront the dignity of the targeted group or individuals.

Of course, Whatcott is not the first time the Supreme Court has balanced freedom of expression with other rights: see, for example, R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 and Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. The Whatcott case is significant, though, because the Court modifies its approach to balancing freedom of expression with other rights, clarifying what amounts to “hate speech” and the narrow circumstances in which expression and religious freedoms may be limited in the interests of equality.

In Whatcott, the Court held that, even where the expression in question is hateful and although it might incite discrimination, it is protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter. Thus, the provision of the Code that seeks to restrict this type of expression breaches s. 2(b) of the Charter. In this case, however, the Court found that the Code was largely constitutional because the breach was justified in part at s. 1 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court faced the difficult task of distinguishing between forms of expression and the level of constitutional protection they warrant. The Court sought to create an objective test for differentiating between expression that fosters hate (and whose restriction is justified under the Charter) and other forms of expression, which although offensive and perhaps repugnant, cannot reasonably be limited under the Charter.

According to the Court, where equality rights compete with and lead to limits on freedom of expression and religion, the Charter requires that those limits be interpreted restrictively. Thus, only where the expression in question is “hateful” will it justify placing limits on freedoms of expression and religion. The Court creates a high threshold for what will constitute “hate” speech, restricting it to those “extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification””.

To distinguish between hate and other less extreme forms of expression, the Court proposes the objective standard of the reasonable person and it focuses on the effect of the expression, rather than the intent of the speaker. In sum, restrictions on expression and the freedom of religion will be constitutional if a reasonable person would conclude that the expression is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.

Applying this standard, the Court rejected s. 14’s broader definition of prohibited expression. It held that the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” in s. 14 are constitutionally invalid and must be read out of the legislation. These words extend beyond hate speech and include less extreme forms of expression, forms that cannot justifiably infringe other Charter rights.

In essence, the distinction between these forms of speech and the constitutionality of the limitations placed upon them becomes a matter of degrees. It can be difficult to make out some of the nuances between what is “hateful” and what is merely “repugnant”. In my view, it is difficult to make this distinction on a purely objective basis. In most cases, deciding whether or not a behaviour or omission amounts to discrimination under human rights legislation will include some consideration of its subjective impact on the complainant.

I think it is also problematic that the Court ultimately strikes down portions of s. 14 because they are not rationally connected to the Code’s legislative purpose. This seems an odd conclusion. After all, the legislation at issue is the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, whose purpose is to limit discrimination against protected individuals and groups. It seems unreasonable to conclude that the Code’s legislative objective is not rationally connected to the prevention of expression that disparages individuals because of a protected ground.

While it may be appropriate to distinguish between the effects of particular forms expression on vulnerable groups, striking down portions of s. 14 because they are not rationally connected to the legislative purpose of the Code is not a principled way of doing so. Ultimately, the Court appears to be differentiating between expression that is, itself, discriminatory and expression that is discriminatory and likely to incite discriminatory behavior. This can be a difficult distinction to make and one that I believe does not flow from the legislative objectives of the Code. Arguably, limiting both of these forms of expression is not inconsistent with the Code’s legislative objectives of preventing discrimination. Under many human rights statutes across the country, some forms of expression can amount to discrimination, either because they are harassing or because they constitute an announced intention to discriminate. These restrictions on expression need to be considered in terms of Charter rights and, in balancing these rights, it may be appropriate to limit only the most extreme forms of expression. However, it would have been helpful to see a more principled approach to the issue, one that does not rely on a flawed interpretation of the objectives of human rights legislation.

*Appointed to the University of Ottawa’s faculty of law in July 2012, Professor Flaherty teaches labour law, administrative law and human rights.

Happy International Women's Day

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:27:00 +0000

Canada falls to 21st place in the bid to be the best place in the world to be a woman.

Muslim Law Students of the University of Ottawa Event

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:22:00 +0000

The Little Things III

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:31:00 +0000

I often think about the role of reconciliation in the Idle No More movement, how both non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal peoples play important roles in the quest to achieve equality. With images of protests, railway blockades, and highway slowdowns that run through my mind when I hear the words "Idle No More", I force myself to shift my thinking beyond the large scale exhibitions and consider the actions that occur at the most fundamental level. Much less obvious, and not widely displayed to the average Canadian, simple acts of respect and inclusion are occurring across this country and their effects are of a quiet strength.

Let’s look to the party of 25 who decided to take Mr. Dressup’s tickle trunk to a whole new level in late January. I am referring to the “Cowboys and Indians” party that started at a private Toronto residence and moved to The Rhino, a hipster hangout in Toronto’s Parkdale neighbourhood. Perhaps you’ve heard about it? The event was a small blip on the media’s radar.

A party of approximately 25 people proudly sporting feathers, tomahawks, headdresses, braids, and plaid shirts, cowboy hats and leather vests arrived at the Parkdale hotspot to celebrate two birthdays. They grew comfortable in the bar scene, dancing, ordering drinks, making war calls and mimicking face scalpings. They were having a great ol’ time.

They were having so much fun, in fact, that they didn’t notice the looks of utter disgust on the faces of the other patrons in the bar. Frankie, a Rhino regular, was also trying to enjoy his evening with his group of friends but this proved to be challenging. He couldn’t relax while being surrounded by a large group of non-Aboriginal people inappropriately dressed in traditional Aboriginal attire who were acting out in such a disrespectful way. Frankie and his friends were also non-Aboriginal, but that didn’t matter. They knew inherently that what they were seeing was just not right. They took action.

Frankie and his pals took to Twitter. One tweet read, “There are people actually dressed as cowboys and Indians. Face paint and feathers.” Their tweets were pushed forward by several Tweeters, and soon thereafter The Rhino twitter and Facebook accounts were soon inundated with pressing messages accusing The Rhino of promoting and supporting racist behaviours.

Julie, a female friend of Frankie’s, approached Rhino management and was told, “It’s just a costume. Get over it.”

Another individual from the group approached another Rhino staffer and was told not to worry, that the group seemed to be on a pub crawl and would surely be moving on to another destination shortly.

Clearly, the Rhino staff members were none too concerned.

Meanwhile in “TwitterWorld,” activists, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, from various areas of the City of Toronto, began to flock to the Rhino to express their concerns and show solidarity.

One small group arrived at the bar with flyers for distribution entitled, “Our Culture Is Not A Costume”.

Another small group took to conversing peacefully with members of the offending group in attempts to educate the ignorance.

Mister G, who tweeted an update, provided that he was successful in convincing the male offenders to remove their headdresses. “Here at the @TheRhinoBar got the guys to remove their headdress. There are people from the First Nations here, calm I don’t know how!!”

Following the incident, The Rhino was quiet. Comments on the bar’s Facebook and Twitter accounts, whereby writers were calling out the staff for lack of action on the matter, were promptly deleted. On January 29, approximately one week following the incident, The Rhino issued a statement on their website acknowledging the incident and clarifying that they had no part in organizing the costume party. They also issued an apology stating, “Please accept our deepest apologies to anyone who has been offended by this incident and our assurances that we will not permit it to happen again.”

We can thank the small yet significant actions of Frankie and his pals who so admirably spoke up that night of the “Big White ‘Rhino’ that was in the room.”

It’s the little things…

Karen Restoule is Ojibway and a member of Dokis First Nation. She is a recent graduate of the French Common Law Program at the University of Ottawa. Currently, Karen is completing her articles in the area of social justice. Prior to attending law school, she worked in provincial corrections and legal fields. She graduated from the University of Toronto in 2005, in Aboriginal Studies and Linguistics. In her free time, Karen enjoys visiting with family and friends, cooking, film, and working towards the advancement of the rights of First Nations communities and peoples.

One Billion Rising

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:04:00 +0000

Check out One Billion Rising's Valentine's Day action to end violence against women.

Maybe it is time uOttawa had a little rising of our own?

What about International Women's Day?

It’s the little things...II

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:27:00 +0000

It’s the little things...

by Karen R. Restoule*

Thomas, a popular hairstylist in northeastern Ontario, loves his job and can’t imagine doing anything else. What other job would allow him to meet and chat with such a wide diversity of people while expressing his creative artistic side in the styling of hair. He was enjoying a pleasant Tuesday evening styling primping Connie and Suzette, who had been clients of his for over a decade. The three of them were enjoying a conversation about their travels, when Connie and Suzette began to share their opinions on the more recent Idle No More movement and its effects on their daily lives.

At one point, the exchange went something like this:

Connie: “I really wish them Indians would stop whining and crying about their rights. The government gives them enough money as it is, they should just shut up and be happy with it.”

Suzette: “Oh yes, I know. I was trying to get into town for some shopping at Costco the other day and some of them had blocked the road! They were only letting a few cars by at a time, and were handing out flyers to each car that drove by. I was curious to see what it was they were complaining about this time, so I took one and it was just another complaint about their “rights”. I just don’t understand what more they want – the government gives them so much already!”

And so the conversation continued.

Thomas grew quiet. He is not Aboriginal, but he has grown tired of hearing the complaints about Aboriginal peoples and their rights. He found himself wondering how it was that two non-Aboriginal privileged women could have such strong opinions on a group of peoples that they clearly knew nothing about. Thomas admits to having a limited understanding of the issues himself, but before forming opinions he had reached out to few Aboriginal friends and clients to whom he would ask questions from time to time. He was slowly learning, and the more he learned, the more he was able to recognize the injustice and inequality that is a reality for Aboriginal peoples in Canada and across the world.

He felt that what he was hearing was wrong, so he decided to speak up.

Thomas: “You know ladies, I don’t understand why you’re so upset and speak so poorly of Aboriginal peoples. Just last year, you were outraged because one of our local mining companies had been bought out and your husband’s jobs and workers’ rights were affected. You both spoke so passionately about how important it was to strike and advocate about the labour rights that your fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers had fought so hard to have recognized and protected. Why is it that you believe it to be okay for the mining workers to advocate to have their rights protected and respected, but it’s not okay for Aboriginal peoples to advocate to have theirs protected and respected?”

Connie and Suzette sat in silence as their perms set.

It’s the little things.

*Karen is Ojibway and a member of Dokis First Nation. She is a recent graduate of the French Common Law Program at the University of Ottawa. Currently, Karen is completing her articles in the area of social justice. Prior to attending law school, she worked in provincial corrections and legal fields. She graduated from the University of Toronto in 2005, in Aboriginal Studies and Linguistics. In her free time, Karen enjoys visiting with family and friends, cooking, film, and working towards the advancement of the rights of First Nations communities and peoples.

Missing Sisters: A Crowdsourced Map of Violence Against Aboriginal Women in Canada

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:31:00 +0000

Teresa Scassa

Missing Sisters: A Crowdsourced Map of Violence Against Aboriginal Women in Canada

Last week I wrote a post about Harassmap, a web site established by activists to document and record women’s experiences of sexual harassment in Egypt. Part of the goal of the map is to make visible the invisible and to create a powerful visual and textual record with a view to social change.

On Tuesday, February 4 2013, the group Anonymous released a crowd-sourced map that aims to document crimes of violence against aboriginal women in Canada. Information on the map appears to be collected from a combination of newspaper reports, online municipal crime report information and reports by individuals. The map includes a function that allows individuals to report incidents. The map records solved and unsolved murders, missing women, unidentified remains, and verbal and sexual assaults. While in some cases there is little information available, some individual posts link to news stories, or contain the written descriptions provided by contributors.

Maps of this kind have enormous potential. They can create a verbal and visual record of incidents that might otherwise go unreported. They also represent information in a way that can be much more powerful than a series of isolated reports, and that can be more compelling than a lengthy written document. Geographic representation of this kind of information, combined with crowd-sourced reporting of incidents that might not appear in official records also may reveal new and significant patterns in the information.

The new Missing Sisters map is thus an interesting and potentially important initiative. It gives a taste of what might be achieved using crowd sourcing to document the extent of violence and harassment of aboriginal women in Canada. The site is linked to Operation Thunderbird, a coalition of activists concerned about violence against aboriginal women in Canada. The press release that was issued to launch the map speaks of the goals and objectives of the map and gives more information about the steps taken to collect and verify information. Unfortunately, very little of this information about the site, its creators, and its methodology appears on the Missing Sisters map site itself. Those who visit the site to upload their own stories of harassment and violence should easily be able to find out something about the map-makers, their objectives in creating the map and perhaps their longer term goals for it. The site would also benefit from some clear and explicit text (and/or video) explaining it goals and methods.

The Ushahidi platform that is the basis both for this map and for HarassMap is free and user-friendly. Let’s hope that Missing Sisters sparks interest and enthusiasm for this powerful vehicle for communication.

Trinity Western University Proposed Faculty of Law

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:33:00 +0000

Click here to find commentary in the Globe and Mail on Trinity Western University's proposed law school.

Click here to find Blogging For Equality on the proposed law school at Trinity Western University.

An Idle No More Documentary

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:12:00 +0000

Click here to see a documentary on the Idle No More movement by uOttawa law student Michael Anderson featuring faculty, students and activists from our Faculty of Law. More evidence of the AMAZING students we have here.

Crowd-sourced sexual harassment map for Egypt

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:24:00 +0000

Crowd-sourced sexual harassment map for Egypt

Teresa Scassa

Widely available web 2.0 tools for creating digital online maps have opened up the realm of mapmaking to a very broad spectrum of individuals. The crowd-sourcing of information to place in geographic context has also become an important way by which information that is often difficult to gather can be collected and shared.

An example of such an undertaking is HarassMap. This map is the work of a group of activists, researchers and volunteer contributors who are using crowdsourcing techniques to map and document incidents of sexual harassment and gender-based violence in Egypt. The map uses colour coding to distinguish between various types of harassment. It allows anyone with a smartphone, email or internet connection to report incidents that can be plotted on the map. The reports, which are anonymous, provide descriptions of each incident. The website offers English, French and Arabic versions, although the reports are published in the language used by the individual making the report. Stated goals of the map are to end the social acceptability of sexual harassment in Egypt, provide a reporting system, and to “revitalize the public movement”.

It's the little things....

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:14:00 +0000

It’s the little things...

Karen R. Restoule*

One that comes to mind involves my partner, his classmates and their sports journalism professor "Harold". In their second week of class, Harold challenged his students with the very first question in their current events quiz by asking, “Who is Theresa Spence?” Now you would think that a room full of educated and engaged folks would have caught a glimpse of news reports of the Chief who was going into Week 4 of her hunger strike. You would think. But they hadn't. Ok, to be fair, less than 1/4 of the students were able to respond correctly. Was I really surprised though? Was I surprised that they flipped (or scrolled down) right past the front page photo of a woman who was willing to put her health and life into jeopardy to bring public attention to the life-threatening issues that continue to plague her First Nation? The very same woman that has been referred as the Ghandi of First Nations peoples? Not in the least.

HOWEVER, perhaps I should quiet my inner critic and focus on the good here because there is some good. In fact, there is some GREAT! And that wonderful thing is the very reality that in a post-graduate sports journalism class within the City of Toronto, where very few First Nations, Inuit, or Metis students sit (if any), where only non-Aboriginal peoples teach, and where Aboriginal issues are not expected to be discussed, a question regarding one of the greatest Aboriginal movements of our time was included in a weekly pop quiz.

This is what reconciliation looks like, folks. It’s the little things.

*Karen is Ojibway and a member of Dokis First Nation. She is a recent graduate of the French Common Law Program at the University of Ottawa. Currently, Karen is completing her articles in the area of social justice. Prior to attending law school, she worked in provincial corrections and legal fields. She graduated from the University of Toronto in 2005, in Aboriginal Studies and Linguistics. In her free time, Karen enjoys visiting with family and friends, cooking, film, and working towards the advancement of the rights of First Nations communities and peoples.

Mark the 25th anniversary of the Morgental decision in Ottawa

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:34:00 +0000

Le français suit

January 28th marks the 25th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision which enshrined Canadian women’s right to choose. To commemorate this milestone, Niki Ashton, MP and NDP Critic for the Status of Women in partnership with Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD), would like to invite you to participate in a discussion on reproductive rights.

When: January 28th, 2013

Time: 6:00 pm-8:30 pm

Where: Room 7-50, 131 Queen St, Ottawa

Light refreshments will be served followed by the live streaming of a panel discussion in Toronto featuring; Judy Rebick, Michele Landsberg, Carolyn Egan, Angela Robertson, and Jillian Bardsley, as well as speeches in Ottawa by activists Mélanie Jubinville-Stafford and Sahra Maclean.

Please confirm your attendance by no later than 12 noon EST on Friday January 25th at 613-992-3018 or niki.ashton.a1@parl.gc.ca

****************************

Le 28 janvier marque le 25e anniversaire de la décision Morgentaler, qui a consacré la liberté de choix des Canadiennes. Pour célébrer cet événement, Niki Ashton, députée et porte-parole du NPD pour la Condition féminine, en partenariat avec Action Canada pour la population et le développement (ACPD), vous invite à participer à une discussion sur les droits reproductifs.

Quand: Le 28 Janvier, 2013

Heure: 18:00 – 20:30

Lieu: Pièce 7-50, 131 Rue Queen, Ottawa

Un léger goûter sera servi suivi par la diffusion en direct d'une table ronde à Toronto avec; Judy Rebick, Michele Landsberg, Carolyn Egan, Angela Robertson, et Jillian Bardsley, ainsi que des discours à Ottawa par les militantes Mélanie Jubinville-Stafford et Sahra Maclean.

RSVP au plus tard le vendredi 25 Janvier à midi, au 613-992-3018 ou niki.ashton.a1@parl.gc.ca

Why TWU should not have a law school

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:33:00 +0000

Trinity Western University, a private, Christian university in British Columbia has made an application to open a law school. Trinity Western requires all faculty, staff and students to sign a covenant promising to abstain form same-sex sexual intimacy. Students who fail to abide by the covenant can be disciplined, including by expulsion.

Read this op-ed in the National Post by uOttawa law Professors Jena McGill and Angela Cameron and other Canadian GLBTQ activists outlining why Trinity Western's application should be turned down.

Battered Women's Defences Still in Question

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 00:22:00 +0000

Professors Elizabeth Sheehy and Carissima Mathen published this op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen, discussing the recent Supreme Court of Canada case to examine battered women's defences.

Colloque CAELS/CAELS Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:22:00 +0000

CAELS Conference

Canadian Environmental Law: Thinking Big And Small

February 22-23, 2013 at the University Of Ottawa

The Canadian Association of Environmental Law Societies (CAELS) is an exciting new networking project that connects environmental law students, practitioners and professionals from across the country. As part of our education mandate, we are proud to hold our first annual conference from February 22-23, 2013 at the University of Ottawa. The conference will feature multidisciplinary panels of graduate students, practitioners, and academics who will be discussing pressing environmental issues such as the impacts of Bill C-38, climate change and the law, and corporate social responsibility. Environmental law requires expertise in a broad variety of disciplines, from physics and biological sciences to law and policy to social movements. Panels will reflect this diversity. This event will allow CAELS to establish itself as a forum for students and professionals in Ontario and Canada who are interested in the development and study of environmental law.

For more details about the conference or about registration, please visit our website at www.caels.org.

Colloque CAELS

Droit environnemental canadien : Une question de taille
Les 22 et 23 février 2013 à l’Université d’Ottawa

L’Association canadienne des sociétés des étudiant(e)s en droit environnemental (CAELS), une initiative récente et prometteuse, permet le réseautage entre les étudiants de droit environnemental, les praticiens et les professionnels à travers le pays. Dans le cadre de notre mandate d’éducation, nous présentons fièrement notre premier colloque annuel les 22 et 23 février 2013 à l’Université d’Ottawa. Ce colloque comportera des panels d’experts multidisciplinaires composés d’étudiants gradués, de praticiens et de chercheurs universitaires qui discuteront de certains problèmes environnementaux pressants tels l’impact du projet de loi C-38, le changement climatique et le droit ainsi que la responsabilité sociale des entreprises. Le droit environnemental nécessite l’expertise d’une panoplie de disciplines, de la physique et des sciences biologiques au droit et à la politique en passant par les mouvements sociaux. Les panels d’experts reflèteront cette diversité. Cet évènement permettra à CAELS de s’établir en Ontario, ainsi que dans l’ensemble du Canada, en tant que forum pour les étudiants et les professionnels intéressés par le développement et l’étude du droit environnemen

Idle No More at Uottawa Law

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:02:00 +0000

Support Uottawa Law's Aboriginal Law Students Association as they mobilise to participate in Idle No More today.

Walk with them to Parliament Hill.

Departing the Fauteux Hall lobby at 11:15 am.

Bring your umbrellas and your solidarity.

If you have morning class come up to the Hill afterwards.

Idle No More at Uottawa Law- Walk to the Hill

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:48:00 +0000

The Aboriginal Law Student's Association of the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law are organising a walk from the faculty to Parliament Hill on Friday January 11th, 2013.

The walk will begin from the lobby of Fauteux Hall at 11:15 am.

Come show your solidarity with our Aboriginal students, and Aboriginal peoples across Canada in this historic date.

Idle No More Round Dance Flash Mob

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:36:00 +0000

Round Dance Flash Mob @ 1 PM TODAY on Tabaret Lawn (Laurier) on the University of Ottawa campus.

Come show your solidarity with Canada's Indigenous peoples.

Black Law Students' Association of Canada's 22nd National Conference

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:34:00 +0000

ENGLISH

---------------------------------------------------
BE THE CHANGE

Black Law Students' Association of Canada's 22nd National Conference

Ottawa, Ontario
February 21 - 24 2013
----------------------------------------------------

Mark your calendars - the 22nd national Black Law Students Association of Canada (BLSAC) conference will take place in Ottawa, Ontario from February 21 - 24, 2013. First launched in Toronto in 1992, BLSAC's national conference has grown to be the most important legal gathering on the Black community calendar.Early bird registration will be open on Friday, January 11^th at 9:00AM. The first twenty people to register will get the exclusive opportunity to attend a Special Meeting with the Right Honourable Chief Justice McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada!

Highlights include:

Thursday (Morning) | Meet the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The first 20 members to register online will benefit from a special meeting with The Right Honourable Beverley McLaughlin, Chief Justice of Canada. All delegates invited to attend the hearing.

Thursday | Books to Prisons. Bring your gently used literature to inmates at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre."In the last 10 years, the number of federally incarcerated Black Canadians increased by over 40%".

Thursday | Legal Writing Academy Cafe. A session to give you the nuts and bolts of effective legal writing in articling and beyond.

Thursday | Field Trips in the National Capital Region. Explore the city's beauty with visits to the National Gallery of Canada, Canadian Museum of Civilization, Parliament Hill and Centre d'Exposition de l'Imagier.

Thursday | Dinner in the Capital. Enjoy the city`s finest cuisine and network with your colleagues from across the country. Words of welcome from our Mayor, The Honourable Jim Watson.

Friday | Blakes' Morning Ceremonies: Break Barriers Build Bridges. Touching souls and uplifting spirits, Montreal’s renowned Imani Gospel Singers inspires you with soulful, melodious and vibrant music.

Friday | 50 Shades of White? Dean Camille Nelson tackles racism in law schools and the legal profession, and imparts strategies for change.

Friday | Intellectual Property, Entertainment and Technology Law. Leading and emerging experts provide insights on the trends of the trade.

Friday |The Trials of Law School.A journey in Law.A journey in Life. A pre-law session consisting of a screening of a film followed by a Q&A on the law school experience.

Friday | A Change Is Gonna Come. Stellar advocates lead a discussion on innovative, progressive approaches to law and social change.

Friday | Youth Dialogue with the Michaelle Jean Foundation. Join the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean and Jean-Daniel LaFond for a community dialogue on empowering Black and minority youth to build solutions to challenges facing our communities.

Saturday | Colour of Democracy. A no holds barred discussion on the politics of power, access and civic engagement in Canadian society.

Saturday | National Security Blues. An expert panel on hot button national security issues in a post-9/11 era.

Saturday | Justice Julius Isaac Alexander Diversity Moot Court Competition (Sponsored by KoskyMinsky). An annual highlight, moot finalists compete in this championship round before a distinguished panel of judges and the entire BLSAC community.

Saturday | Gala Night. Reflecting the confidence, dignity and style of the nation's capital, convene at the ball room for a night to remember.

Be the Change. See You In the Capital.

w ww.blsacanada.com

FRENCH

---------------------------------------------------

BE THE CHANGE

22e Conférence Nationale de l’Association des Étudiants Noirs en Droit du Canada

Ottawa (Ontario)

2013 21-24 Février

----------------------------------------------------

Marquez vos calendriers - la 22ème conférence nationale de l’Association des ÉtudiantsNoirs en Droit du Canada (BLSAC) aura lieu à Ottawa du de 21-24 février 2013. Lancé à Toronto en 1992, la Conférence nationale de BLSAC est devenue le rassemblement le plus important de la communauté juridique noire au Canada.

L’inscription rapide sera ouverte le vendredi 11 janvier à 09h00. Les 20 premières personnes à s’inscrireauront la possibilité exclusive d'assister à une réunion spéciale avec la très Honorable juge en chef McLachlin de la Cour Suprême du Canada.

Faits saillants :

Jeudi (matin) | Rencontrer la juge en chef de la Cour Suprême du Canada. Les 20 premiers membres à s’inscrire en ligne vont bénéficier d'une réunion spéciale avec l’honorable Beverley McLaughlin, juge en chef de la Cour Suprême du Canada. Tous les délégués sont invités à assister à l'audience.

Jeudi | Livres pour les Prisons. Apportez votre littérature légèrement usagée aux détenus du Centre de détention d'Ottawa-Carleton. Au cours des 10 dernières années, le nombre de Noirs incarcérés par le gouvernement fédéral du Canada a augmenté de plus de 40 %.

Jeudi | Café de l'Académie de rédaction juridique. Une session pour vous donner les rouages d'une rédaction juridique en stage et au-delà.

Jeudi | Visites sur le terrain dans la région de la capitale nationale. Explorez la beauté de la ville avec des visites au Musée des beaux-arts du Canada, au Musée canadien des civilisations, la colline du Parlement et au Centre d'exposition de l'Imagier.

Jeudi | Dîner dans la capitale. Profitez de la meilleure cuisine de la ville et faites du réseautage avec vos collègues venant des quatre coin du Canada. Mots de bienvenue de notre maire, l'honorable Jim Watson.

Vendredi | Cérémonies de Mâtiné Blakes : Obstacles de saut de jeter des ponts. Toucher les âmes et relèvement des esprits, les célèbresImani Gospel Singersde Montréal vous inspire avec de la musique soul, mélodieuse et dynamique.

Vendredi | 50 Nuances de blanc? Dean Camille Nelson aborde le racisme dans les facultés de droit et de la profession d'avocat et donne des stratégies de changement.

Vendredi | Propriété intellectuelle, de divertissement et de droit de l'informatique. Des experts nouveaux et imminents donnent un aperçu sur les tendances du commerce.

Vendredi |Les essais de la faculté de droit. Un voyage en droit. Un voyage dans la vie. Une session avant-droit consistant en une projection d'un film suivie d'un Q & R sur l'expérience à la faculté de droit.

Vendredi | Un changement viendra. Des avocatsexemplaires animent une discussion sur des approches novatrices et progressistes à droit et changement social.

Vendredi | Dialogue jeunesse avec la Fondation de Michaelle Jean. Joignez-vous à la très honorable Michaëlle Jean et Jean-Daniel LaFond pour un dialogue communautaire sur l'autonomisation noir et jeunesse minoritaire pour élaborer des solutions aux défis auxquels font face nos communautés.

Samedi | Couleur de la démocratie. Une discussion franche sur la politique de la puissance, l'accès et l'engagement civique dans la société canadienne.

Samedi | Blues de sécurité nationale. Un groupe d'experts sur les questions de sécurité nationale, un point sensible dans une ère post-9/11.

Samedi | Concours de plaidoirie Justice Julius Isaac Alexander diversité (parrainé par KoskyMinsky). Un événement annuel, où les finalistes s'affrontent dans ce championnat devant un panel distingué de juges et l'ensemble de la communauté de BLSAC.

Samedi | Soirée de gala. Reflétant la confiance, la dignité et le style de la capitale nationale aura lieu à la salle de bal pour une soirée inoubliable.

Soyez le changement. Rendez-vous dans la capitale.

www.blsacanada.com

Idle No More Round Dance Flash Mob

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:33:00 +0000

Round Dance Flash Mob @ 1 PM TODAY on Tabaret Lawn (Laurier) on the University of Ottawa campus.

Come show your solidarity with Canada's Indigenous peoples.

Information Maps, Freedom of Expression and Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Admin) — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:21:00 +0000

Information Maps, Freedom of Expression and Privacy

Professor Teresa Scassa

A New York newspaper created a furore by publishing, in the wake of the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, an interactive online map that displayed the names and addresses of residents holding permits for guns. The newspaper obtained the data through an access to information request. The map was accompanied by an article with the title: “The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood." The map and article provoked outrage. Gun owners were concerned about their privacy, and one news agency ran an interview with a retired burglar who suggested that the map would make burglars’ work much easier. A blogger responded to the map by creating another map which featured the names and addresses of the staff of the newspaper. The newspaper has reportedly had to hire armed guards to protect its main office.

This is, of course, not the first time that controversial information maps have been created by news agencies or by others. In California, for example, information about election donors is a matter of public record. Someone used this information to publish a map detailing the names, addresses and contribution amounts of individuals who had donated to a campaign to amend the State’s constitution to prohibit gay marriage.

Widely available Web 2.0 tools and resources have made it easy for almost anyone to create online maps. The ability to present information in a geographical context is an attractive option. Information maps are visually appealing, and can reveal patterns and permit connections that might not be evident from data presented in the form of lists or plain text. For example, Patrick Cain, a Canadian journalist, has been creating innovative and fascinating information maps for many years. Perhaps one of his most useful maps is his annual map of busted grow-ops in Toronto. There are real risks associated with purchasing a house which was once used for a grow op, and there is no obligation on sellers to disclose this information. The grow-op maps provide important and easily accessible information for those searching for a new home.

While there is great potential for useful information maps, there are also potential risks. There is a great deal of publicly available information collected by different levels of government. For example, many registers of public documents, and decisions of administrative tribunals are already accessible to the public. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has expressed concerns about the consequences of placing this sort of information online; in the past, public access was available to those who showed up at specific sites to view the entries in the register. This implicitly limited access to this information. While some of this public information might be very usefully presented to the public in map form (see, for example, the maps of crime reports in Ottawa) other information may have serious privacy or security consequences if disclosed online and in map form.

Privacy and data protection laws in Canada do not offer a great deal of protection in this regard. While governments are bound by privacy legislation that protects against the disclosure of personal information in the context of access to information requests, other government information is part of public registers. Individuals who disclose information on maps for personal, non-commercial purposes may be exempt from the application of national or provincial private sector data protection laws, and these laws also create exceptions for information that is collected, used or disclosed for “artistic, literary or journalistic purposes”. (I recently published a law journal article on this issue.)Thus, for example, a news outlet in Canada that did something comparable to the New York-based newspaper described above might well be insulated from recourse under data protection laws because of their “journalistic purposes” in doing so.

There is, of course, a tricky balance to be struck. Personal privacy and individual security are important values, but so are those served by open government (transparency, accountability) and by the freedom of expression. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada is expected to rule sometime in the coming year on the constitutionality of the exception for journalistic purposes in Alberta’s private sector data protection legislation. That decision may give use some guidance on the tricky balance between freedom of expression and the protection of privacy. In the meantime governments must continue to examine how best to achieve the goals of openness while at the same time protecting individual privacy and security.