Scholarship on corporate crime focuses, quite naturally, on profit-motivated crime. But there are crimes with an institutional dimension that are not recognized in this framework of corporate crime. In this article, I present a case study of a police organization where multiple employees committed sexual assaults to show that these crimes can have an organizational dimension. This analysis shows two things: first, that the corporate-culture model of attributing mens rea is more effective at identifying corporate crime than the one currently in force in Canada and second, that organization-facilitated sexual assault is a corporate-entity crime, broadening the conception of corporate crime generally. The corporate-culture model explains why corporations should be liable for crimes they encourage employees to commit even when these are not in line with the organization’s objectives.
{"title":"Police Sexual Violence and Corporate Crime","authors":"Sylvia Rich","doi":"10.3138/cjwl_2023_09_22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl_2023_09_22","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarship on corporate crime focuses, quite naturally, on profit-motivated crime. But there are crimes with an institutional dimension that are not recognized in this framework of corporate crime. In this article, I present a case study of a police organization where multiple employees committed sexual assaults to show that these crimes can have an organizational dimension. This analysis shows two things: first, that the corporate-culture model of attributing mens rea is more effective at identifying corporate crime than the one currently in force in Canada and second, that organization-facilitated sexual assault is a corporate-entity crime, broadening the conception of corporate crime generally. The corporate-culture model explains why corporations should be liable for crimes they encourage employees to commit even when these are not in line with the organization’s objectives.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139004713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-13DOI: 10.3138/cjwl_2023_grant3
Isabel Grant, Janine Benedet, Elizabeth Sheehy, Catherine Frazee
This article explores the recent expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada and its negative implications for women with disabilities. In 2021, the government extended MAiD to people with disabilities who are not dying, which the authors contend is a modern form of eugenics. Structured as a conversation and deploying a systemic, equality-based feminist analysis, the article tracks the shifts in scope and justification for MAiD through judicial and legislative developments, the overwhelming opposition by organizations representing people with disabilities, and the failure of feminist organizations to support their disabled sisters. The authors articulate a feminist response to the expansion of MAiD to address this troubling silence. After Isabel Grant sets out the foundations of Track 2 MAiD, Janine Benedet develops a critique of the concepts of autonomy, choice, and privacy as used by MAiD expansionists to justify these premature deaths. Elizabeth Sheehy explores some of the structural issues that affect the impetus for MAiD: women’s poverty, the medical profession, the gendered nature of caregiving, and men’s violence. Isabel Grant demonstrates the particular dangers for women of the extension of MAiD on the basis of mental illness, as evidenced by data from other countries. Catherine Frazee describes what a truly intersectional feminist approach to MAiD demands of more privileged feminists and concludes the conversation with a call for feminist solidarity.
{"title":"A Conversation on Feminism, Ableism, and Medical Assistance in Dying","authors":"Isabel Grant, Janine Benedet, Elizabeth Sheehy, Catherine Frazee","doi":"10.3138/cjwl_2023_grant3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl_2023_grant3","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the recent expansion of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada and its negative implications for women with disabilities. In 2021, the government extended MAiD to people with disabilities who are not dying, which the authors contend is a modern form of eugenics. Structured as a conversation and deploying a systemic, equality-based feminist analysis, the article tracks the shifts in scope and justification for MAiD through judicial and legislative developments, the overwhelming opposition by organizations representing people with disabilities, and the failure of feminist organizations to support their disabled sisters. The authors articulate a feminist response to the expansion of MAiD to address this troubling silence. After Isabel Grant sets out the foundations of Track 2 MAiD, Janine Benedet develops a critique of the concepts of autonomy, choice, and privacy as used by MAiD expansionists to justify these premature deaths. Elizabeth Sheehy explores some of the structural issues that affect the impetus for MAiD: women’s poverty, the medical profession, the gendered nature of caregiving, and men’s violence. Isabel Grant demonstrates the particular dangers for women of the extension of MAiD on the basis of mental illness, as evidenced by data from other countries. Catherine Frazee describes what a truly intersectional feminist approach to MAiD demands of more privileged feminists and concludes the conversation with a call for feminist solidarity.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139006070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article uses the 1978–79 trial of Vancouver prison activists and feminists Betsy Wood and Gay Hoon as a means of exploring the changing nature of feminist prison activism in Canada during the 1970s. The trial is placed in its historical context, with a focus on contemporary discussions about reform, abolition, and the carceral state, particularly in the feminist press and feminist organizations. The Wood/Hoon trial is explored through an analysis of both media accounts and archival records, including the very few records of the trial that survived. Discussion surrounding the trial shows the changing nature of feminist thinking about prisons: older feminist traditions of “helping” reform were challenged with new, left-wing, more radical perspectives that argued that all incarceration sustained and perpetuated forms of gender, race, and class social control.
{"title":"Prison Activism on Trial: Canadian Feminists Mobilize against the Carceral State during the 1970s","authors":"Joan Sangster","doi":"10.3138/cjwl-2023-07-12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl-2023-07-12","url":null,"abstract":"This article uses the 1978–79 trial of Vancouver prison activists and feminists Betsy Wood and Gay Hoon as a means of exploring the changing nature of feminist prison activism in Canada during the 1970s. The trial is placed in its historical context, with a focus on contemporary discussions about reform, abolition, and the carceral state, particularly in the feminist press and feminist organizations. The Wood/Hoon trial is explored through an analysis of both media accounts and archival records, including the very few records of the trial that survived. Discussion surrounding the trial shows the changing nature of feminist thinking about prisons: older feminist traditions of “helping” reform were challenged with new, left-wing, more radical perspectives that argued that all incarceration sustained and perpetuated forms of gender, race, and class social control.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135425591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Over the past five years, the Supreme Court of Canada has continued to grapple with the meaning of constitutional equality and discrimination. In this regard, there is a clear consensus that the Court should follow a two-step test to assess violations of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. First, the Court must identify a grounds-based distinction and, second, determine whether the distinction violates substantive equality. While both parts of the test present interconnected conceptual and contextual challenges, this article focuses on how the Court has applied the first step of the section 15 equality analysis. Recent case law reveals a deeply divided Court. First, fundamental differences are apparent with respect to whether grounds-based distinctions may be understood as inextricably embedded in legislative schemes. Second, the justices diverge on the exigencies of proving adverse impact discrimination. Legal technicalities, comparator group formalities, and fear of imposing any positive rights obligations on governments obscure critical dimensions of the disproportionate effects of law. Third, the association of adverse impact with unintentional discrimination risks overlooking the importance of the actual knowledge of disparities in the effects of laws and policies. Finally, the complex realities of intersectionality, while recognized by some justices, continue to remain on the periphery of equality rights doctrine. While the second step of the equality analysis engages more directly with an assessment of the contextual realities of substantive inequality, it is critical to ensure that courts reach this stage of the analysis and that it is not cut short, thwarted, or obstructed by narrow and formalistic approaches to identifying grounds-based distinctions.
{"title":"Grounds-Based Distinctions: Contested Starting Points in Equality Law","authors":"Colleen Sheppard","doi":"10.3138/cjwl.2023.06.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.2023.06.12","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past five years, the Supreme Court of Canada has continued to grapple with the meaning of constitutional equality and discrimination. In this regard, there is a clear consensus that the Court should follow a two-step test to assess violations of section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. First, the Court must identify a grounds-based distinction and, second, determine whether the distinction violates substantive equality. While both parts of the test present interconnected conceptual and contextual challenges, this article focuses on how the Court has applied the first step of the section 15 equality analysis. Recent case law reveals a deeply divided Court. First, fundamental differences are apparent with respect to whether grounds-based distinctions may be understood as inextricably embedded in legislative schemes. Second, the justices diverge on the exigencies of proving adverse impact discrimination. Legal technicalities, comparator group formalities, and fear of imposing any positive rights obligations on governments obscure critical dimensions of the disproportionate effects of law. Third, the association of adverse impact with unintentional discrimination risks overlooking the importance of the actual knowledge of disparities in the effects of laws and policies. Finally, the complex realities of intersectionality, while recognized by some justices, continue to remain on the periphery of equality rights doctrine. While the second step of the equality analysis engages more directly with an assessment of the contextual realities of substantive inequality, it is critical to ensure that courts reach this stage of the analysis and that it is not cut short, thwarted, or obstructed by narrow and formalistic approaches to identifying grounds-based distinctions.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135885405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The purpose of this study was to identify the determinants of health and associated outcomes for women lawyers. It was also to identify promising avenues of research to improve the legal profession for women. The systematic literature review was conducted using five databases. Papers were first selected by eliminating the duplicates, then by analyzing the title and abstract, and finally by reading the papers in full. Twenty-six articles met the inclusive and exclusive criteria. Women lawyers’ health determinants fall under four main categories: working conditions, organizational culture, psychological violence at work, and health determinants outside of work. The outcomes were separated into three categories: physical outcomes, psychological outcomes, and work-related outcomes. The conclusions of this study show the significant difficulties women face advancing in their career and balancing their work and family responsibilities.
{"title":"Health Determinants and Outcomes among Women Lawyers: A Systematic Literature Review","authors":"R. Guertin, Nathalie Cadieux, Martine Gingues","doi":"10.3138/cjwl.2023.06.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.2023.06.01","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to identify the determinants of health and associated outcomes for women lawyers. It was also to identify promising avenues of research to improve the legal profession for women. The systematic literature review was conducted using five databases. Papers were first selected by eliminating the duplicates, then by analyzing the title and abstract, and finally by reading the papers in full. Twenty-six articles met the inclusive and exclusive criteria. Women lawyers’ health determinants fall under four main categories: working conditions, organizational culture, psychological violence at work, and health determinants outside of work. The outcomes were separated into three categories: physical outcomes, psychological outcomes, and work-related outcomes. The conclusions of this study show the significant difficulties women face advancing in their career and balancing their work and family responsibilities.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43982315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Le présent article traite de l'intersectionnalité et les droits linguistiques législatifs en Ontario et au Canada. L'argument principal évoqué porte sur la nécessité de l'analyse intersectionnelle pour assurer l'égalité réelle dans la conception et la mise en œuvre des droits linguistiques législatifs des francophones en situation minoritaire dans toute leur diversité. En gros, la Loi sur les services en français (LSF) en Ontario et la Loi sur les langues officielles du Canada (LLO) confèrent aux francophones des droits à des services gouvernementaux en français dans certains contextes. Selon la théorie de l'intersectionnalité, afin d'assurer l'égalité réelle quant aux services publics offerts dans la langue française, telle que celle garantie par la LSF et la LLO, il faut identifier, prendre en compte et affronter les formes d'oppression complexes qui marginalisent les francophones qui se retrouvent dans des positions à l'intersection d'un ou de plusieurs autres axes de domination. Ce texte vise ainsi à lancer une discussion sur la conception et la mise en œuvre des droits linguistiques législatifs à partir d'une lentille intersectionnelle. Il se décline en trois parties. La première partie explique ce qu'est l'intersectionnalité. Alors que les universitaires francophones ont adopté plus tardivement l'intersectionnalité que les universitaires de langue anglaise, l'analyse demeure complètement absente du domaine des droits linguistiques au Canada. La seconde partie aborde d'abord une discussion sur la diversité au sein de la communauté francophone en Ontario et au Canada, puis traite de certains aspects des droits linguistiques sous l'angle intersectionnel. Je commencerai par examiner brièvement certaines dispositions de la LSF et de la LLO. Dans la troisième partie, je porterai une attention particulière sur les rapports du commissaire aux services en français, du commissaire aux langues officielles et de l'adjointe de l'ombudsman chargée de certaines fonctions sous la LSF. Les rapports et recommandations ne révèlent aucune analyse intersectionnelle des enjeux de droits linguistiques législatifs. De plus, on ignore les retombées éventuelles des violations des droits linguistiques législatifs sur les francophones marginalisés par leur position à l'intersection de plus d'un axe de domination. Pourtant, à la lumière de la riche diversité qui existe au sein de la communauté francophone en Ontario et au Canada ainsi que de l'émergence récente des mouvements sociaux visant à lutter contre la discrimination intersectionnelle dans une variété de domaines de la société, il est stupéfiant que les termes « genre », « race », « handicap », « transgenre », ou « orientation sexuelle » soient pratiquement absents des rapports du commissaire aux langues officielles et de l'ombudsman adjointe de l'Ontario responsable de certains aspects de la LSF. La troisième partie aussi aborde quelques exemples des impacts perceptibles et importants d'un manque d'ana
{"title":"Les francophones éffacé·e·s: L'intersectionnalité et la mise en œuvre des droits linguistiques législatifs en Ontario et au Canada","authors":"A. Levesque","doi":"10.3138/cjwl.34.2.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.34.2.03","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Le présent article traite de l'intersectionnalité et les droits linguistiques législatifs en Ontario et au Canada. L'argument principal évoqué porte sur la nécessité de l'analyse intersectionnelle pour assurer l'égalité réelle dans la conception et la mise en œuvre des droits linguistiques législatifs des francophones en situation minoritaire dans toute leur diversité. En gros, la Loi sur les services en français (LSF) en Ontario et la Loi sur les langues officielles du Canada (LLO) confèrent aux francophones des droits à des services gouvernementaux en français dans certains contextes. Selon la théorie de l'intersectionnalité, afin d'assurer l'égalité réelle quant aux services publics offerts dans la langue française, telle que celle garantie par la LSF et la LLO, il faut identifier, prendre en compte et affronter les formes d'oppression complexes qui marginalisent les francophones qui se retrouvent dans des positions à l'intersection d'un ou de plusieurs autres axes de domination. Ce texte vise ainsi à lancer une discussion sur la conception et la mise en œuvre des droits linguistiques législatifs à partir d'une lentille intersectionnelle. Il se décline en trois parties. La première partie explique ce qu'est l'intersectionnalité. Alors que les universitaires francophones ont adopté plus tardivement l'intersectionnalité que les universitaires de langue anglaise, l'analyse demeure complètement absente du domaine des droits linguistiques au Canada. La seconde partie aborde d'abord une discussion sur la diversité au sein de la communauté francophone en Ontario et au Canada, puis traite de certains aspects des droits linguistiques sous l'angle intersectionnel. Je commencerai par examiner brièvement certaines dispositions de la LSF et de la LLO. Dans la troisième partie, je porterai une attention particulière sur les rapports du commissaire aux services en français, du commissaire aux langues officielles et de l'adjointe de l'ombudsman chargée de certaines fonctions sous la LSF. Les rapports et recommandations ne révèlent aucune analyse intersectionnelle des enjeux de droits linguistiques législatifs. De plus, on ignore les retombées éventuelles des violations des droits linguistiques législatifs sur les francophones marginalisés par leur position à l'intersection de plus d'un axe de domination. Pourtant, à la lumière de la riche diversité qui existe au sein de la communauté francophone en Ontario et au Canada ainsi que de l'émergence récente des mouvements sociaux visant à lutter contre la discrimination intersectionnelle dans une variété de domaines de la société, il est stupéfiant que les termes « genre », « race », « handicap », « transgenre », ou « orientation sexuelle » soient pratiquement absents des rapports du commissaire aux langues officielles et de l'ombudsman adjointe de l'Ontario responsable de certains aspects de la LSF. La troisième partie aussi aborde quelques exemples des impacts perceptibles et importants d'un manque d'ana","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45950338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This article provides empirical data on the public discourse surrounding abortion in Saskatchewan. Through an analysis of newspaper articles from two time periods—the dawn of the Charter era and three decades after Morgentaler—this article considers how abortion is framed in these accounts and whether, when "rights" terminology is employed, rights are presented as absolute or limited. This article adds to the empirical body of work documenting the presence of "rights talk" in Canada and the literature on the media's framing of abortion.Abstract:Cet article fournit des données empiriques sur la perception publique de l'avortement en Saskatchewan. Grâce à une analyse d'articles de journaux sur deux périodes—à l'aube de l'ère de la Charte et trois décennies après Morgentaler—le présent article examine comment la question de l'avortement est présentée et si, lorsque la terminologie des « droits » est employée, ces derniers sont présentés comme absolus ou limités. Le présent article s'ajoute à l'ensemble des travaux empiriques qui documentent la présence du « discours sur les droits » au Canada et à la documentation sur le traitement médiatique de l'avortement.
{"title":"\"Rights Talk,\" Abortion, and the Media: Tracking the Evolution of Abortion Discourse in Saskatchewan Newspapers","authors":"S. Burningham, S. James","doi":"10.3138/cjwl.34.2.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.34.2.05","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article provides empirical data on the public discourse surrounding abortion in Saskatchewan. Through an analysis of newspaper articles from two time periods—the dawn of the Charter era and three decades after Morgentaler—this article considers how abortion is framed in these accounts and whether, when \"rights\" terminology is employed, rights are presented as absolute or limited. This article adds to the empirical body of work documenting the presence of \"rights talk\" in Canada and the literature on the media's framing of abortion.Abstract:Cet article fournit des données empiriques sur la perception publique de l'avortement en Saskatchewan. Grâce à une analyse d'articles de journaux sur deux périodes—à l'aube de l'ère de la Charte et trois décennies après Morgentaler—le présent article examine comment la question de l'avortement est présentée et si, lorsque la terminologie des « droits » est employée, ces derniers sont présentés comme absolus ou limités. Le présent article s'ajoute à l'ensemble des travaux empiriques qui documentent la présence du « discours sur les droits » au Canada et à la documentation sur le traitement médiatique de l'avortement.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46122078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:En Côte d'Ivoire, la loi ne reconnait pas les mariages coutumiers et religieux, malgré une récente réforme de son droit de la famille. Ces unions sont alors régies par des règles informelles et plurielles, réputées discriminatoires à l'égard des femmes. La non-reconnaissance juridique n'a en rien freiné ces mariages qui, au contraire, prospèrent et résistent avec succès au modèle étatique en étant affranchis de toutes balises. À partir d'un cadre appliquant à la fois une approche respectueuse du pluralisme juridique et basée sur une réflexion féministe, le présent article propose une analyse qui met en lumière les interactions entre, d'une part, le rejet juridique des mariages coutumiers et religieux disqualifiés en unions de fait et, d'autre part, la condition juridique et socioéconomique précaire des femmes. C'est au nom de la prétention de l'État au monopole de la production du droit que les normes coutumières sont éjectées, et c'est au nom du pluralisme culturel des communautés ayant des engagements normatifs différents que les droits des femmes sont sacrifiés.Abstract:In Ivory Coast, the law does not recognize customary and religious marriages, despite a recent reform of its family law. These unions are therefore governed by informal and plural rules, deemed discriminatory against women. The lack of legal recognition has done nothing to curb these marriages, which, on the contrary, thrive and successfully resist the State model by being free of any guidelines. Using a framework that is both respectful of legal pluralism and based on feminist approach, this paper offers an analysis that highlights the interactions between the legal rejection of customary and religious marriages disqualified as common law unions and the precarious legal and socioeconomic status of women. Customary norms are being rejected in the name of the State's claim to monopolize the production of laws, and women's rights are being sacrificed on the altar of cultural pluralism as practiced by communities with different normative commitments.
摘要:在cote d' ivoire，尽管最近对家庭法进行了改革，但法律不承认传统婚姻和宗教婚姻。因此，这些工会受到非正式和多重规则的管理，这些规则被认为是对妇女的歧视。法律上的不承认并没有阻止这些婚姻，相反，它们蓬勃发展，成功地抵制了国家模式，摆脱了所有的障碍。应用框架起既是一种基于一个尊重法律和多元化的女权思想,本文提出一种分析,突出互动,一方面拒绝取消资格在习俗婚姻和宗教婚姻的法律和事实,另一方面妇女法律和社会经济地位岌岌可危。正是在国家垄断法律生产的名义下，习惯规范被抛弃了，正是在具有不同规范承诺的社区的文化多元化的名义下，妇女权利被牺牲了。摘要:在科特迪瓦，法律不承认习俗和宗教婚姻，尽管最近对其家庭法进行了改革。因此，这些工会受非正式的、多元的规则管理，歧视妇女。缺乏法律承认并没有阻止这种婚姻，相反，这种婚姻蓬勃发展并成功地抵制了国家模式，不受任何指导方针的约束。本文采用既尊重法律多元化又以女权主义方法为基础的框架，进行了分析，强调了法律上拒绝习俗和宗教婚姻作为普通法结合的资格与妇女不稳定的法律和社会经济地位之间的相互作用。习俗规范以国家主张垄断法律生产的名义遭到拒绝，妇女权利被牺牲在文化多元化的祭坛上，因为有不同规范承诺的社区实行文化多元化。
{"title":"La non-reconnaissance des unions coutumières et religieuses dans le nouveau droit de la famille ivoirien: Un non-respect du droit à l'égalité des femmes","authors":"Aude Dibi, L. Langevin","doi":"10.3138/cjwl.34.2.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.34.2.01","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:En Côte d'Ivoire, la loi ne reconnait pas les mariages coutumiers et religieux, malgré une récente réforme de son droit de la famille. Ces unions sont alors régies par des règles informelles et plurielles, réputées discriminatoires à l'égard des femmes. La non-reconnaissance juridique n'a en rien freiné ces mariages qui, au contraire, prospèrent et résistent avec succès au modèle étatique en étant affranchis de toutes balises. À partir d'un cadre appliquant à la fois une approche respectueuse du pluralisme juridique et basée sur une réflexion féministe, le présent article propose une analyse qui met en lumière les interactions entre, d'une part, le rejet juridique des mariages coutumiers et religieux disqualifiés en unions de fait et, d'autre part, la condition juridique et socioéconomique précaire des femmes. C'est au nom de la prétention de l'État au monopole de la production du droit que les normes coutumières sont éjectées, et c'est au nom du pluralisme culturel des communautés ayant des engagements normatifs différents que les droits des femmes sont sacrifiés.Abstract:In Ivory Coast, the law does not recognize customary and religious marriages, despite a recent reform of its family law. These unions are therefore governed by informal and plural rules, deemed discriminatory against women. The lack of legal recognition has done nothing to curb these marriages, which, on the contrary, thrive and successfully resist the State model by being free of any guidelines. Using a framework that is both respectful of legal pluralism and based on feminist approach, this paper offers an analysis that highlights the interactions between the legal rejection of customary and religious marriages disqualified as common law unions and the precarious legal and socioeconomic status of women. Customary norms are being rejected in the name of the State's claim to monopolize the production of laws, and women's rights are being sacrificed on the altar of cultural pluralism as practiced by communities with different normative commitments.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45108900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:In November 2021, this virtual roundtable discussion brought together three activist-scholars to examine current trans legal issues in Canada and reflect on a broader vision for trans justice. The conversation's starting points were the recent Superior Court of Québec's decision in Centre for Gender Advocacy v Attorney General of Quebec, which found that Québec law about identification papers discriminated against trans and non-binary people, and the provincial government's shocking response in proposing regressive and harmful legal changes. The panelists contextualized these legal twists by discussing the recurring patterns of trans rights victories being followed by anti-trans backlash; the gaps between legal reforms and their implementation; the law's promises for, and limits in, effecting social change; and the vital role that community expertise can and must play in (re)defining the future of trans justice.Abstract:En novembre 2021, cette table ronde virtuelle a réuni trois activisteschercheurs et activistes-chercheuses pour examiner les problématiques juridiques trans en cours au Canada et réfléchir à une vision plus large de la justice trans. La conversation tournait autour de la récente décision de la Cour supérieure du Québec dans l'affaire Centre de lutte contre l'oppression des genres (Centre for Gender Advocacy) c Québec (Procureure générale), qui a conclu que la loi québécoise sur les pièces d'identité était discriminatoire à l'égard des personnes trans et non binaires, ainsi que de la réaction choquante du gouvernement provincial qui a proposé des changements juridiques régressifs et nuisibles. Les panélistes ont mis en contexte ces revirements juridiques en discutant des schémas récurrents de victoires en matière de droits trans étant suivies de revers anti-trans ; des écarts entre les réformes juridiques et leur mise en œuvre ; des promesses et des limites de la loi en matière de changement social ; du rôle vital que l'expertise communautaire peut et doit jouer dans la (re)définition de l'avenir de la justice trans.
摘要:在2021年11月，这个虚拟圆桌讨论汇集了三位活动家-学者来研究当前加拿大的跨性别法律问题，并反思跨性别司法的更广泛愿景。对话的起点是最近高等法院对魁省性别倡导中心诉魁北克省总检察长一案的判决，该判决认定魁省有关身份证件的法律歧视跨性别者和非二元性别者，以及省政府令人震惊的回应，提议进行倒退和有害的法律改革。小组成员通过讨论跨性别权利胜利后反跨性别反弹的反复模式，将这些法律曲折置于背景下;法律改革与实施之间的差距;法律对社会变革的承诺和限制;社区专业知识在(重新)定义跨性别司法的未来方面能够而且必须发挥至关重要的作用。摘要/ Abstract摘要:2021年11月，cette table ronde virtuelle a raidsamuis trois activisteschercheurs et activisteschercheuses pour examiner les problem - raidsamuques juridiques trans En cours au Canada, et recsamuques vision plus large de la justice trans。《对话》tournait autour de La recente决定de La Cour师范魁北克在l 'affaire中心de lutte靠l 'oppression des类型(性别倡导)中心c魁北克(Procureure兴业银行),谁有conclu什么quebecoise苏尔法则碎片d 'identite是discriminatoire l 'egard des人反式等非好办法,依照ainsi, de La政府反应choquante省级提出des变化juridiques regressifs nuisibles。综上所述，所有的变性人都是变性人，所有的变性人都是变性人，所有的变性人都是变性人;所有的前程前程都是一帆风顺的;社会变革与社会发展之间的承诺与限制;Du rôle至关重要的公共知识共享机制，并将其与司法公正机制(司法公正机制)相结合。
{"title":"Trans Rights, Trans Justice: A Conversation About Key Trans Legal Issues in Canada","authors":"William N. Hebert, Samuel Singer, Dt","doi":"10.3138/cjwl.34.2.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.34.2.07","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In November 2021, this virtual roundtable discussion brought together three activist-scholars to examine current trans legal issues in Canada and reflect on a broader vision for trans justice. The conversation's starting points were the recent Superior Court of Québec's decision in Centre for Gender Advocacy v Attorney General of Quebec, which found that Québec law about identification papers discriminated against trans and non-binary people, and the provincial government's shocking response in proposing regressive and harmful legal changes. The panelists contextualized these legal twists by discussing the recurring patterns of trans rights victories being followed by anti-trans backlash; the gaps between legal reforms and their implementation; the law's promises for, and limits in, effecting social change; and the vital role that community expertise can and must play in (re)defining the future of trans justice.Abstract:En novembre 2021, cette table ronde virtuelle a réuni trois activisteschercheurs et activistes-chercheuses pour examiner les problématiques juridiques trans en cours au Canada et réfléchir à une vision plus large de la justice trans. La conversation tournait autour de la récente décision de la Cour supérieure du Québec dans l'affaire Centre de lutte contre l'oppression des genres (Centre for Gender Advocacy) c Québec (Procureure générale), qui a conclu que la loi québécoise sur les pièces d'identité était discriminatoire à l'égard des personnes trans et non binaires, ainsi que de la réaction choquante du gouvernement provincial qui a proposé des changements juridiques régressifs et nuisibles. Les panélistes ont mis en contexte ces revirements juridiques en discutant des schémas récurrents de victoires en matière de droits trans étant suivies de revers anti-trans ; des écarts entre les réformes juridiques et leur mise en œuvre ; des promesses et des limites de la loi en matière de changement social ; du rôle vital que l'expertise communautaire peut et doit jouer dans la (re)définition de l'avenir de la justice trans.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47309274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:Major projects, such as mines, dams, and pipelines impose disproportionate social and environmental harms on marginalized communities. Environmental impact assessment, a central legal framework for approving these projects, has historically failed to identify and address these impacts, thus perpetuating environmental injustice across the country. Changes to the federal impact assessment legislation in 2019 appear to offer a partial response. The new legislation mandates gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) as part of the assessment for major projects. This article considers the potential for mandatory GBA+ to encode intersectionality in impact assessment and begin to address the systemic discrimination carried out through impact assessment laws. It finds that, while the new requirement will make it more challenging for proponents and decision-makers to ignore the allocation of disproportionate burdens and harms, the current framing and implementation of GBA+ represents an additive or check-box approach to addressing discrimination and thus falls short of its intersectional aim.Abstract:Les grands projets, comme les mines, les barrages et les gazoducs, imposent aux communautés marginalisées des préjudices sociaux et environnementaux disproportionnés. L'évaluation de l'impact environnemental, comme cadre juridique central à l'approbation de ces projets, a traditionnellement échoué à identifier et à traiter les effets négatifs, perpétuant ainsi l'injustice environnementale dans tout le pays. Les changements apportés à la Loi sur l'évaluation d'impact fédérale en 2019 semblent offrir une réponse partielle. La nouvelle loi rend obligatoire l'analyse comparative entre les sexes plus (ACS+) dans le cadre de l'évaluation des grands projets. Le présent article examine le potentiel de l'ACS+ obligatoire pour encoder l'intersectionnalité dans l'évaluation d'impact et commencer à aborder la discrimination systémique résultant de l'application des lois sur l'évaluation d'impact. Bien qu'il sera plus difficile pour les promoteurs et les décideurs de faire fi des fardeaux et des préjudices disproportionnés grâce à l'exigence de l'analyse ACS+, la formulation et la mise en œuvre actuelles de l'ACS+ ne représentent qu'une mesure de service ou une case à cocher pour aborder la discrimination, et n'atteint donc pas son objectif intersectionnel.
{"title":"\"Add Women and Stir\": The Potential and Limits of GBA+ in Canadian Impact Assessment Law","authors":"Isabelle Lefroy, Jocelyn Stacey","doi":"10.3138/cjwl.34.2.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjwl.34.2.02","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Major projects, such as mines, dams, and pipelines impose disproportionate social and environmental harms on marginalized communities. Environmental impact assessment, a central legal framework for approving these projects, has historically failed to identify and address these impacts, thus perpetuating environmental injustice across the country. Changes to the federal impact assessment legislation in 2019 appear to offer a partial response. The new legislation mandates gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) as part of the assessment for major projects. This article considers the potential for mandatory GBA+ to encode intersectionality in impact assessment and begin to address the systemic discrimination carried out through impact assessment laws. It finds that, while the new requirement will make it more challenging for proponents and decision-makers to ignore the allocation of disproportionate burdens and harms, the current framing and implementation of GBA+ represents an additive or check-box approach to addressing discrimination and thus falls short of its intersectional aim.Abstract:Les grands projets, comme les mines, les barrages et les gazoducs, imposent aux communautés marginalisées des préjudices sociaux et environnementaux disproportionnés. L'évaluation de l'impact environnemental, comme cadre juridique central à l'approbation de ces projets, a traditionnellement échoué à identifier et à traiter les effets négatifs, perpétuant ainsi l'injustice environnementale dans tout le pays. Les changements apportés à la Loi sur l'évaluation d'impact fédérale en 2019 semblent offrir une réponse partielle. La nouvelle loi rend obligatoire l'analyse comparative entre les sexes plus (ACS+) dans le cadre de l'évaluation des grands projets. Le présent article examine le potentiel de l'ACS+ obligatoire pour encoder l'intersectionnalité dans l'évaluation d'impact et commencer à aborder la discrimination systémique résultant de l'application des lois sur l'évaluation d'impact. Bien qu'il sera plus difficile pour les promoteurs et les décideurs de faire fi des fardeaux et des préjudices disproportionnés grâce à l'exigence de l'analyse ACS+, la formulation et la mise en œuvre actuelles de l'ACS+ ne représentent qu'une mesure de service ou une case à cocher pour aborder la discrimination, et n'atteint donc pas son objectif intersectionnel.","PeriodicalId":44818,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Women and the Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43203650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：