{"title":"Sanja Kutnjak Ivković, Shari Seidman Diamond, Valerie P. Hans, and Nancy S. Marder, eds. Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts: A Global Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 366 pp.","authors":"Jérémy Boulanger-Bonnelly","doi":"10.1017/cls.2021.44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.44","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"105 1","pages":"179-180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138537779","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}
{"title":"CLS volume 37 issue 1 Cover and Back matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/cls.2022.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2022.5","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"b1 - b3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41905500","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}
Résumé Le contrôle excessif est considéré par différents organismes communautaires et institutions du Québec comme une des représentations des violences basées sur l’honneur (VBH) au même titre que les mariages forcés, les mutilations génitales féminines (MGF) et les violences physiques ou psychologiques. En 2016, pour la première fois, le législateur québécois a ajouté le contrôle excessif à la liste des mauvais traitements psychologiques explicitement reconnus par la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (LPJ). Toutefois, aucune définition juridique, jurisprudentielle, politique ou même doctrinale du contrôle excessif n’accompagne cette reconnaissance juridique. Pourtant, il existe, sur le terrain et dans différentes décisions judiciaires, des situations où l’existence du contrôle excessif est reconnue par divers intervenants du système. L’objectif du présent article est d’appréhender le phénomène du contrôle excessif à partir, d’abord, d’un examen doctrinal et juridique, autant fédéral que provincial, concernant les VBH en général, et ensuite, d’une analyse jurisprudentielle des décisions de la Chambre de la Jeunesse de la Cour du Québec associées particulièrement au contrôle excessif. Le tout permettra de proposer une définition du contrôle excessif dans le contexte des VBH, dans le but de mieux identifier cette violence intrafamiliale spécifique et de mieux intervenir auprès des victimes et de leur famille.
{"title":"Le contrôle excessif dans le contexte des violences basées sur l’honneur au Québec : Analyse juridique et jurisprudentielle d’une violence genrée","authors":"Estibaliz Jimenez","doi":"10.1017/cls.2021.45","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.45","url":null,"abstract":"Résumé Le contrôle excessif est considéré par différents organismes communautaires et institutions du Québec comme une des représentations des violences basées sur l’honneur (VBH) au même titre que les mariages forcés, les mutilations génitales féminines (MGF) et les violences physiques ou psychologiques. En 2016, pour la première fois, le législateur québécois a ajouté le contrôle excessif à la liste des mauvais traitements psychologiques explicitement reconnus par la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (LPJ). Toutefois, aucune définition juridique, jurisprudentielle, politique ou même doctrinale du contrôle excessif n’accompagne cette reconnaissance juridique. Pourtant, il existe, sur le terrain et dans différentes décisions judiciaires, des situations où l’existence du contrôle excessif est reconnue par divers intervenants du système. L’objectif du présent article est d’appréhender le phénomène du contrôle excessif à partir, d’abord, d’un examen doctrinal et juridique, autant fédéral que provincial, concernant les VBH en général, et ensuite, d’une analyse jurisprudentielle des décisions de la Chambre de la Jeunesse de la Cour du Québec associées particulièrement au contrôle excessif. Le tout permettra de proposer une définition du contrôle excessif dans le contexte des VBH, dans le but de mieux identifier cette violence intrafamiliale spécifique et de mieux intervenir auprès des victimes et de leur famille.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"69 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44407966","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 Public support is a critical component of any court’s institutional legitimacy. Understanding the roots and durability of such support is therefore crucial. This article uses survey data to explore public attitudes towards Canadian courts from 2008 to 2019. This time period is especially relevant given the comparatively tumultuous relationship between the Supreme Court and the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006–2015). Notably, partisanship now appears to be a defining characteristic of court support in Canada, with Conservative Party supporters being less likely to support the courts. While institutional trust is also found to be a strong predictor of court support, this suggests public attitudes towards Canadian courts may no longer be as well shielded from the effects of changing political circumstances as they once were.
{"title":"Public Support for Canadian Courts: Understanding the Roles of Institutional Trust and Partisanship","authors":"Erin Crandall, A. Lawlor","doi":"10.1017/cls.2021.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.28","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Public support is a critical component of any court’s institutional legitimacy. Understanding the roots and durability of such support is therefore crucial. This article uses survey data to explore public attitudes towards Canadian courts from 2008 to 2019. This time period is especially relevant given the comparatively tumultuous relationship between the Supreme Court and the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (2006–2015). Notably, partisanship now appears to be a defining characteristic of court support in Canada, with Conservative Party supporters being less likely to support the courts. While institutional trust is also found to be a strong predictor of court support, this suggests public attitudes towards Canadian courts may no longer be as well shielded from the effects of changing political circumstances as they once were.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"91 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48348703","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 Addressing criticism that bail blurs the line between prevention and punishment, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed “it is time to ensure that bail provisions are applied consistently and fairly” (R v Antic 2017 SCC 27, [2017] 1 SCR 509). Rather than reform bail, this decision simply reaffirmed the existing legal mandate: using the ladder principle, accused must be released with the fewest conditions necessary to prevent them from absconding, reoffending/interfering with the administration of justice, and/or bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute. We analyze 480 bail hearings in Ontario, Canada, that occurred pre- and post- the R v Antic decision. Our results reveal that justices are more attentive to the ladder principle post-Antic, such that more accused are released on their own recognizance than in the past. While post-Antic trends show a reduction in the use of certain behaviour-modifying conditions, bail supervision programs are used more frequently. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of Canada’s “broken bail system.”
针对保释模糊了预防和惩罚之间的界限的批评，加拿大最高法院一致同意“是时候确保保释条款得到一致和公平的适用了”(R v Antic 2017 SCC 27， [2017] 1 SCR 509)。这一决定不是改革保释，而是简单地重申了现有的法律授权:利用阶梯原则，被告必须以最少的必要条件被释放，以防止他们潜逃、再次犯罪/干涉司法行政，和/或使刑事司法系统名誉扫地。我们分析了加拿大安大略省的480次保释听证会，这些听证会发生在R v Antic判决之前和之后。我们的研究结果表明，法官们更关注后安蒂克时代的阶梯原则，因此，与过去相比，更多的被告在自己承认的情况下被释放。虽然后安蒂克时代的趋势表明，某些行为修正条件的使用有所减少，但保释监督程序的使用却更为频繁。我们根据加拿大“破碎的保释制度”来讨论这些发现的含义。
{"title":"Unbreaking Bail?: Post-Antic Trends in Bail Outcomes","authors":"Rachel Schumann, Carolyn Yule","doi":"10.1017/cls.2021.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.43","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Addressing criticism that bail blurs the line between prevention and punishment, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously agreed “it is time to ensure that bail provisions are applied consistently and fairly” (R v Antic 2017 SCC 27, [2017] 1 SCR 509). Rather than reform bail, this decision simply reaffirmed the existing legal mandate: using the ladder principle, accused must be released with the fewest conditions necessary to prevent them from absconding, reoffending/interfering with the administration of justice, and/or bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute. We analyze 480 bail hearings in Ontario, Canada, that occurred pre- and post- the R v Antic decision. Our results reveal that justices are more attentive to the ladder principle post-Antic, such that more accused are released on their own recognizance than in the past. While post-Antic trends show a reduction in the use of certain behaviour-modifying conditions, bail supervision programs are used more frequently. We discuss the implications of these findings in light of Canada’s “broken bail system.”","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"1 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42108290","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}
Sara Ahmed’s Complaint! takes complaints as its subject, specifically the gap between what is supposed to happen when complaints are made in the context of academic institutions and what actually happens. Drawing on oral and written testimonies from academics and students who have made complaints about harassment, bullying, and unequal working conditions at universities, Ahmed applies a feminist phenomenological perspective to the complaint. She uses her “feminist ear ... as an institutional tactic” (p. 6) to become sensitized to what is required in seeing a complaint through. In so doing, Ahmed recognizes that the complainer’s process of working a complaint through the system is a labour of its own, and often onewhich is thankless, fruitless, and requires resilience in the face of institutionalized power. There is a politics to complaints. For Ahmed, complaints are a unique communicative form, which locates the problem in the onewho speaks out and turns the institution into what the complainer is up against. Certainly, as complainers experience it, being at the helm of complaints is to experience the inscrutable inner workings of the institution. As Ahmed reasons, because of the institution’s demands on the complainer, the process of complaining often becomes part of the crisis or trauma they experience. As a paralegal form that has gone underappreciated in academic literature, the sustained treatment of “the complaint” is an accomplishment of its own. Through Ahmed’s treatment, complaints are positioned as a unique focal point of the study of institutions, with distinctive methodological and conceptual implications. As Ahmed sees it, the formal pathway of complaints places the complainer in a position of direct observation of the organization’s mundane, routinized, and institutionalized form of power. The emphasis on the complainer’s experiences enables Ahmed to appreciate the affective dimensions of the formal and informal institutional mechanisms that work in tandem with one another as complaints are processed by the system. Ahmed does not take for granted the fact that “making a complaint is never completed by a single action” (p. 5). It is significant that the complaints process is lengthy and often “exhausting, especially given that what you complain about is already exhausting and the institutional environment that processes the complaint often requires considerable tactical facility to navigate it and weather its challenges” (p. 5). Power is experienced by the complainer, whose affinity with the complaint puts them in the path of more resistance. Sara Ahmed observes that complaints, by their nature, undergo an institutionally structured death. The book usefully chronicles the ways an institution’s review of a complaint can take on “nonreceptive” forms of recognition to accomplish this goal. Sometimes complaints are processed through mechanisms that simplify or compartmentalize them so that they become trivial or unactionable. Other times
{"title":"Sara Ahmed Complaint! Durham: Duke University Press, 2021. 376 pp.","authors":"Monika Lemke","doi":"10.1017/cls.2022.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2022.6","url":null,"abstract":"Sara Ahmed’s Complaint! takes complaints as its subject, specifically the gap between what is supposed to happen when complaints are made in the context of academic institutions and what actually happens. Drawing on oral and written testimonies from academics and students who have made complaints about harassment, bullying, and unequal working conditions at universities, Ahmed applies a feminist phenomenological perspective to the complaint. She uses her “feminist ear ... as an institutional tactic” (p. 6) to become sensitized to what is required in seeing a complaint through. In so doing, Ahmed recognizes that the complainer’s process of working a complaint through the system is a labour of its own, and often onewhich is thankless, fruitless, and requires resilience in the face of institutionalized power. There is a politics to complaints. For Ahmed, complaints are a unique communicative form, which locates the problem in the onewho speaks out and turns the institution into what the complainer is up against. Certainly, as complainers experience it, being at the helm of complaints is to experience the inscrutable inner workings of the institution. As Ahmed reasons, because of the institution’s demands on the complainer, the process of complaining often becomes part of the crisis or trauma they experience. As a paralegal form that has gone underappreciated in academic literature, the sustained treatment of “the complaint” is an accomplishment of its own. Through Ahmed’s treatment, complaints are positioned as a unique focal point of the study of institutions, with distinctive methodological and conceptual implications. As Ahmed sees it, the formal pathway of complaints places the complainer in a position of direct observation of the organization’s mundane, routinized, and institutionalized form of power. The emphasis on the complainer’s experiences enables Ahmed to appreciate the affective dimensions of the formal and informal institutional mechanisms that work in tandem with one another as complaints are processed by the system. Ahmed does not take for granted the fact that “making a complaint is never completed by a single action” (p. 5). It is significant that the complaints process is lengthy and often “exhausting, especially given that what you complain about is already exhausting and the institutional environment that processes the complaint often requires considerable tactical facility to navigate it and weather its challenges” (p. 5). Power is experienced by the complainer, whose affinity with the complaint puts them in the path of more resistance. Sara Ahmed observes that complaints, by their nature, undergo an institutionally structured death. The book usefully chronicles the ways an institution’s review of a complaint can take on “nonreceptive” forms of recognition to accomplish this goal. Sometimes complaints are processed through mechanisms that simplify or compartmentalize them so that they become trivial or unactionable. Other times","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"341 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43719978","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}
À l’occasion du 50 anniversaire de la Crise d’Octobre au Québec, différents ouvrages sur la question ont été réédités, comme celui de Bernard Dagenais (2020)1, puis celui de Louis Fournier. L’ouvrage de Louis Fournier constitue la synthèse la plus complète publiée au Québec sur l’histoire dumouvement terroriste du Front de libération duQuébec (FLQ), unmouvement qui auramarqué l’histoire du Québec de son empreinte. C’est souvent aussi à travers le prisme des procès que se donne à lire l’histoire de ce mouvement, comme on l’observe dans l’ouvrage de Fournier qui en est à sa troisième édition, remaniée et légèrement enrichie (il le fait d’abord publier chez Québec Amérique en 1982, puis rééditer chez Lanctôt éditeur en 1998 et enfin en 2020). Nul ne doutera du fait qu’il s’agit là du principal ouvrage sur l’histoire du FLQ. Le journaliste Louis Fournier procède à l’inverse des monographies sur la Crise d’Octobre qui commencent par un chapitre d’introduction ou de contexte pour évoquer les différents actes posés par le FLQ à partir de 1962-63. Il consacre son ouvrage entièrement à l’histoire des felquistes et relate les actes que les différentes cellules du mouvement ont posés si bien que la Crise d’Octobre ne concerne qu’une infime partie de son travail. À ce titre, on ne saurait considérer que l’apport historiographique au traitement du sujet soit novateur, puisque sa mise en position secondaire empêche de l’approfondir. Depuis la première édition de l’ouvrage de Louis Fournier, en 1982, un nombre important de monographies ont été publiées, rendant pour ainsi dire moins originale sa contribution à la Crise d’Octobre. On regrette notamment l’absence totale d’exploitation des fonds d’archives, voire des sources policières qu’il mentionne parfois sans références précises. Les publications des membres des cellules du FLQ sont par contre exploitées de manière exhaustive, montrant que Fournier a fait plus que simplement relater les articles de presse parus à l’époque des faits. Dans cette nouvelle édition, la principale contribution de Fournier, il me semble, est de révéler l’identité des rédacteurs du journal La Cognée et d’identifier certains membres du Rassemblement pour l’Indépendance Nationale (RIN) associés à différentes cellules du FLQ. Néanmoins, à cet égard, les lecteurs auraient aimé lire que Germain Archambault, du Mouvement de libération du taxi, de même que les felquistes Jacques Lanctôt, Paul Rose et Francis Simard furent aussi desmilitants du RIN puis du Parti Québécois. Le sens critique de Fournier n’est pas toujours évident et le style est résolument journalistique, sans indications précises des sources. C’est ce qui le conduit, par exemple, à déclarer que Guy Fiset avait trouvé une cache pour les felquistes à la demande du militant Robert Dupuis, sans que la source ne soit précisée. Il affirme que le père de Jacques Cossette-Trudel fut un employé des Affaires extérieures du Canada; or, l’ingénieur Alphonse Cossette-Trudel fut un
{"title":"Louis Fournier FLQ, Histoire d’un mouvement clandestin. Montréal : VLB éditeur, 2020. 369 pp.","authors":"Nicolas Desurmont","doi":"10.1017/cls.2022.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2022.2","url":null,"abstract":"À l’occasion du 50 anniversaire de la Crise d’Octobre au Québec, différents ouvrages sur la question ont été réédités, comme celui de Bernard Dagenais (2020)1, puis celui de Louis Fournier. L’ouvrage de Louis Fournier constitue la synthèse la plus complète publiée au Québec sur l’histoire dumouvement terroriste du Front de libération duQuébec (FLQ), unmouvement qui auramarqué l’histoire du Québec de son empreinte. C’est souvent aussi à travers le prisme des procès que se donne à lire l’histoire de ce mouvement, comme on l’observe dans l’ouvrage de Fournier qui en est à sa troisième édition, remaniée et légèrement enrichie (il le fait d’abord publier chez Québec Amérique en 1982, puis rééditer chez Lanctôt éditeur en 1998 et enfin en 2020). Nul ne doutera du fait qu’il s’agit là du principal ouvrage sur l’histoire du FLQ. Le journaliste Louis Fournier procède à l’inverse des monographies sur la Crise d’Octobre qui commencent par un chapitre d’introduction ou de contexte pour évoquer les différents actes posés par le FLQ à partir de 1962-63. Il consacre son ouvrage entièrement à l’histoire des felquistes et relate les actes que les différentes cellules du mouvement ont posés si bien que la Crise d’Octobre ne concerne qu’une infime partie de son travail. À ce titre, on ne saurait considérer que l’apport historiographique au traitement du sujet soit novateur, puisque sa mise en position secondaire empêche de l’approfondir. Depuis la première édition de l’ouvrage de Louis Fournier, en 1982, un nombre important de monographies ont été publiées, rendant pour ainsi dire moins originale sa contribution à la Crise d’Octobre. On regrette notamment l’absence totale d’exploitation des fonds d’archives, voire des sources policières qu’il mentionne parfois sans références précises. Les publications des membres des cellules du FLQ sont par contre exploitées de manière exhaustive, montrant que Fournier a fait plus que simplement relater les articles de presse parus à l’époque des faits. Dans cette nouvelle édition, la principale contribution de Fournier, il me semble, est de révéler l’identité des rédacteurs du journal La Cognée et d’identifier certains membres du Rassemblement pour l’Indépendance Nationale (RIN) associés à différentes cellules du FLQ. Néanmoins, à cet égard, les lecteurs auraient aimé lire que Germain Archambault, du Mouvement de libération du taxi, de même que les felquistes Jacques Lanctôt, Paul Rose et Francis Simard furent aussi desmilitants du RIN puis du Parti Québécois. Le sens critique de Fournier n’est pas toujours évident et le style est résolument journalistique, sans indications précises des sources. C’est ce qui le conduit, par exemple, à déclarer que Guy Fiset avait trouvé une cache pour les felquistes à la demande du militant Robert Dupuis, sans que la source ne soit précisée. Il affirme que le père de Jacques Cossette-Trudel fut un employé des Affaires extérieures du Canada; or, l’ingénieur Alphonse Cossette-Trudel fut un","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"181 - 183"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49319564","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 The Assisted Human Reproduction Act seeks to protect egg donors’ health and well-being and prevent trade in their reproductive capabilities. In order to fulfill these objectives, the Act prohibits the buying and selling of ova, and only allows for egg donors to be reimbursed for their expenses. However, no regulations setting out what expenses can be reimbursed were promulgated. Sixteen years later, these long-awaited regulations finally came into force in June 2020. In this study, I rely on data from interviews with sixteen egg donors in order to assess how the new regulations might help or hinder concerns that egg donors have with how egg transactions are regulated in Canada. I argue that the new regulations might hinder, more than help with, addressing current concerns related to egg transactions in Canada. The most likely result is that they will not change the current state of affairs.
{"title":"Not Worth the Wait: Why the Long-Awaited Regulations Under the AHRA Don’t Address Egg Donor Concerns","authors":"K. Hammond","doi":"10.1017/cls.2021.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.26","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Assisted Human Reproduction Act seeks to protect egg donors’ health and well-being and prevent trade in their reproductive capabilities. In order to fulfill these objectives, the Act prohibits the buying and selling of ova, and only allows for egg donors to be reimbursed for their expenses. However, no regulations setting out what expenses can be reimbursed were promulgated. Sixteen years later, these long-awaited regulations finally came into force in June 2020. In this study, I rely on data from interviews with sixteen egg donors in order to assess how the new regulations might help or hinder concerns that egg donors have with how egg transactions are regulated in Canada. I argue that the new regulations might hinder, more than help with, addressing current concerns related to egg transactions in Canada. The most likely result is that they will not change the current state of affairs.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"113 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47391946","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 perennial project of rethinking labour law’s conceptual and normative narratives gets fresh treatment in Diamond Ashiagbor’s edited collection Re-Imagining Labour Law for Development: Informal Work in the Global North and South. An outcome of a conference that took place at the University of London’s Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in 2016, the book gathers contributions from emerging researchers and leading international scholars in the field of work regulation. As the title suggests, the book centres on informality. Its key contribution lies in approaching informality not simply as an aberration or a new challenge to examine, but rather as a vantage point from which to reassess and rearticulate labour law and its role in development projects, albeit the latter thread is more clearly pulled through some of the book’s contributions than others. Informality is a condition that remains thematerial reality for a significant and, indeed, a growing share of the world’s workers. Introducing the volume, Ashiagbor observes that while it tends to be associated with work relationships in countries of the Global South, informal work is now proliferating everywhere. Processes of vertical disintegration and labour market flexibility policies long promoted by international institutions like the World Bank and the IMF and embraced by national policymakers around the world are also driving informalization in countries of theGlobal North. Against this backdrop, and in light of the deficits in decent work associated with informality, strategies of formalization, such as those currently promoted by the ILO, seem to be something to embrace. After all, for informal workers, legal protection remains elusive, making labour law “a luxury” of sorts, as expressed by Pamhidzai H. Bamu, one of the book’s contributors writing on the situation in Zimbabwe (Chapter 5, p. 122). Yet as this book shows, what informality entails, whether formalization is the best way to address the associated insecurities, and how labour law or work regulation are implicated in both, are questions that need careful unpacking. The book interrogates these questions through a range of individual and comparative case studies from diverse jurisdictions spanning most continents. It draws upon an eclectic mix of conceptual and methodological tools, embracing contextual, historical, political-economic, and pluralist approaches already popular with labour lawyers, while also drawing on insights from actor network theory, postcolonial theory, regulatory theories, and institutional ethnography.What most of the book’s contributors agree on is that informality, while hard to define and capture precisely (see, e.g., Introduction, Chapters 2, 3, 7, and 10), provides a useful vantage point from which to examine the regulation of work relations more generally. Heeding Liam McHugh-Russell’s caution, the book eschews binaries that juxtapose economic forms and the “standard” work relations privileged in the G
在Diamond Ashiagbor编辑的文集《为发展重新构想劳动法:全球南北的非正式工作》中，重新思考劳动法的概念和规范性叙述的长期项目得到了新的处理。这本书是2016年在伦敦大学高级法律研究所(University of London’s Institute of Advanced Legal Studies)举行的一次会议的成果，汇集了新兴研究人员和国际知名学者在工作监管领域的贡献。正如书名所示，这本书以非正式为中心。它的关键贡献在于，它不仅将非正式性视为一种失常现象或一种需要研究的新挑战，而且将其视为重新评估和重新阐述劳动法及其在发展项目中的作用的有利位置，尽管后者的线索在本书的一些贡献中比其他贡献更清晰。对于世界上相当一部分(实际上是越来越多的)工人来说，非正式状态仍然是一种物质现实。在介绍这本书时，Ashiagbor观察到，虽然它往往与全球南方国家的工作关系有关，但非正式工作现在无处不在。长期以来，世界银行和国际货币基金组织等国际机构推动了劳动力市场的纵向解体进程，并得到了世界各国政策制定者的支持，这些政策也推动了全球北方国家的非正规化。在这种背景下，鉴于与非正式性有关的体面工作的不足，诸如劳工组织目前提倡的正规化战略似乎是值得接受的。毕竟，对于非正规工人来说，法律保护仍然难以捉摸，使劳动法成为某种“奢侈品”，正如书中关于津巴布韦局势的撰稿人之一Pamhidzai H. Bamu所表达的那样(第5章，第122页)。然而，正如本书所展示的，非正式意味着什么，正规化是否是解决相关不安全感的最佳方式，以及劳动法或工作法规如何涉及这两者，都是需要仔细分析的问题。这本书通过一系列来自不同司法管辖区的个人和比较案例研究来询问这些问题。它借鉴了概念和方法工具的折衷组合，包括语境、历史、政治经济和多元主义方法，这些方法已经受到劳工律师的欢迎，同时也借鉴了行动者网络理论、后殖民理论、监管理论和制度人种学的见解。这本书的大多数贡献者都同意，虽然非正式性很难精确地定义和捕捉(参见，例如，引言，第2、3、7和10章)，但它提供了一个有用的有利位置，从这个位置可以更普遍地检查工作关系的规则。注意到利亚姆·麦克休-罗素(Liam mchuugh - russell)的警告，这本书避免了将全球北方享有特权的经济形式和“标准”工作关系与全球“非正式工作和生产的民间形象”并列的二元对立
{"title":"Diamond Ashiagbor, ed.Re-Imagining Labour Law for Development: Informal Work in the Global North and South. Oxford: Hart/Bloomsbury, 2019. 275 pp.","authors":"A. Zbyszewska","doi":"10.1017/cls.2022.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2022.3","url":null,"abstract":"The perennial project of rethinking labour law’s conceptual and normative narratives gets fresh treatment in Diamond Ashiagbor’s edited collection Re-Imagining Labour Law for Development: Informal Work in the Global North and South. An outcome of a conference that took place at the University of London’s Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in 2016, the book gathers contributions from emerging researchers and leading international scholars in the field of work regulation. As the title suggests, the book centres on informality. Its key contribution lies in approaching informality not simply as an aberration or a new challenge to examine, but rather as a vantage point from which to reassess and rearticulate labour law and its role in development projects, albeit the latter thread is more clearly pulled through some of the book’s contributions than others. Informality is a condition that remains thematerial reality for a significant and, indeed, a growing share of the world’s workers. Introducing the volume, Ashiagbor observes that while it tends to be associated with work relationships in countries of the Global South, informal work is now proliferating everywhere. Processes of vertical disintegration and labour market flexibility policies long promoted by international institutions like the World Bank and the IMF and embraced by national policymakers around the world are also driving informalization in countries of theGlobal North. Against this backdrop, and in light of the deficits in decent work associated with informality, strategies of formalization, such as those currently promoted by the ILO, seem to be something to embrace. After all, for informal workers, legal protection remains elusive, making labour law “a luxury” of sorts, as expressed by Pamhidzai H. Bamu, one of the book’s contributors writing on the situation in Zimbabwe (Chapter 5, p. 122). Yet as this book shows, what informality entails, whether formalization is the best way to address the associated insecurities, and how labour law or work regulation are implicated in both, are questions that need careful unpacking. The book interrogates these questions through a range of individual and comparative case studies from diverse jurisdictions spanning most continents. It draws upon an eclectic mix of conceptual and methodological tools, embracing contextual, historical, political-economic, and pluralist approaches already popular with labour lawyers, while also drawing on insights from actor network theory, postcolonial theory, regulatory theories, and institutional ethnography.What most of the book’s contributors agree on is that informality, while hard to define and capture precisely (see, e.g., Introduction, Chapters 2, 3, 7, and 10), provides a useful vantage point from which to examine the regulation of work relations more generally. Heeding Liam McHugh-Russell’s caution, the book eschews binaries that juxtapose economic forms and the “standard” work relations privileged in the G","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"184 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48595727","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 paper argues that analytical jurisprudence has been insufficiently attentive to three significant puzzles highlighted by the legal pluralist tradition: the existence of commonalities between different types of law, the possibility of a distinction between law and non-law, and the explanatory centrality of the state. I further argue that the resolution of these questions sets the stage for a renewed agenda of analytical jurisprudence and has to be considered in attempts for reconciliation between the academic traditions of analytical jurisprudence and legal pluralism, often called “pluralist jurisprudence.” I also argue that the resolution of these problems affects the empirical, doctrinal, and politico-moral inquiries about legal pluralism.
{"title":"The Conceptual Problems Arising from Legal Pluralism","authors":"J. L. Fabra-Zamora","doi":"10.1017/cls.2021.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.39","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper argues that analytical jurisprudence has been insufficiently attentive to three significant puzzles highlighted by the legal pluralist tradition: the existence of commonalities between different types of law, the possibility of a distinction between law and non-law, and the explanatory centrality of the state. I further argue that the resolution of these questions sets the stage for a renewed agenda of analytical jurisprudence and has to be considered in attempts for reconciliation between the academic traditions of analytical jurisprudence and legal pluralism, often called “pluralist jurisprudence.” I also argue that the resolution of these problems affects the empirical, doctrinal, and politico-moral inquiries about legal pluralism.","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"37 1","pages":"155 - 175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43780970","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：