Civil Rights

With judges like Robin Camp, how impartial is Canada’s justice system?

September 29th, 2016 by Shelina Ali

This article was first published on rabble.ca

I was recently listening to a radio program featuring racialized lawyers in Ontario discussing the challenges they faced in the legal profession and was struck by my reaction. I thought: how unfortunate that this was all being shared publically. Unfortunate, not because I did not believe the experiences of these individuals or sympathize with the challenges they were describing, but because I didn’t want people to know about the challenges. Why would anyone hire a racialized lawyer if they knew that the lawyer felt that there was a higher standard placed on them in court, by judges, as compared with their non‑racialized colleagues?

I wish my reaction was that this was the unusual experience of one lawyer and not a reflection of the justice system’s treatment of marginalized groups generally. Instead, it was one which exposed my own distrust in the Canadian judicial system and its impartiality. And my belief that the justice system as a whole does not provide the same opportunities and access to justice for individuals of colour, women, and other marginalized groups.

Read the rest of this entry

Privacy compromised: Legal rights and protections in Canada

August 4th, 2016 by Michael Hackl

This article was first published on rabble.ca

Privacy and secrecy are two interrelated concepts that raise a great many legal and ethical questions, with few easy answers. A recent example of the interplay between these concepts comes from the recent misuse of surveillance video by a liquor store employee. To set the stage, we have to go back to 2013, when a nasty verbal altercation between a feminist activist and men’s rights supporters at an event at the University of Toronto was recorded and uploaded to the Internet. The online response was truly appalling, as the woman involved received numerous serious threats. The level and nature of the abuse (including death and rape threats) was so egregious that she withdrew from her advocacy work, and instead tried to disappear from public attention.

Read the rest of this entry

Alberta parents ‘morally blameworthy’ in son’s death: The moral dimension of alternative health care

June 30th, 2016 by Celia Chandler

This article was first published on rabble.ca

Last April, a jury found David and Collet Stephan guilty of “failing to provide the necessaries of life,” under section 215 of the Criminal Code, when their nearly 19-month-old son Ezekiel died in March 2012 of meningitis. Rather than pursuing traditional health care for their son, they made a series of decisions about his health care from February 27, 2012 — the day little Ezekial’s symptoms emerged ‑‑ through to the evening of March 13, 2012, when he stopped breathing and they called 911. Those decisions involved treating him with, among other things, hot peppers, garlic, onions and horseradish, despite a nurse family friend suggesting his symptoms might point to meningitis. Their defence at trial was that they had pursued a legitimate, alternative course of treatment.

Read the rest of this entry

Carter & Assisted Suicide: Where We Stand One Year Later

March 2nd, 2016 by Safia Lakhani

This article was first published on the Ontario Bar Association’s website. It is an update to an earlier article which was first published on Rabble.ca.

February 6, 2016 marked one year since the Supreme Court released its ruling in Carter v. Canada, 2015 SCC 5. That decision struck down the constitutionality of Sections 14 and 241(b) of the Criminal Code, which prohibit assisted suicide, on the basis that they infringed on the individual’s right to life, liberty and security, and the right to equal protection under the law, in a manner that could not be justified under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Carter was a departure from the Court’s earlier ruling in Rodriguez, in which the provisions prohibiting assisted suicide were found to violate the individuals’ right to life, liberty and security, but in a manner that was justified under Section 1 of the Charter.

Read the rest of this entry

The state of assisted-dying legislation after Carter

December 7th, 2015 by Safia Lakhani

This post was first published on rabble.ca

On November 13, 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau provided his Minister of Justice, Jodi Wilson-Raybould, with a mandate letter. First on the list of priorities is that Ms. Wilson-Raybould “lead a process, supported by the Minister of Health, to work with provinces and territories to respond to the Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding physician-assisted death.”

It has been nine months since the Supreme Court released its ruling in Carter v. Canada, 2015 SCC 5, striking down the constitutionality of Sections 14 and 241(b) of the Criminal Code which prohibit physician-assisted suicide. The Court in Carter departed from the 1993 ruling in Rodriguez, which also dealt with the issue of physician-assisted suicide. In that case, the Court found that the provisions prohibiting physician-assisted suicide violated the individual’s right to life, liberty and security, but in a manner that was justified under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By contrast, the Court in Carter found that the offending provisions of the Criminal Code infringed on the individual’s right to life, liberty and security, as well as the right to equal protection under the law in a manner that could not be justified. Read the rest of this entry

What the court decision on the niqab ban was really about

October 29th, 2015 by Shelina Ali

This post was first published on rabble.ca

Voter turnout during the last federal election is estimated to be 68.5 per cent, the highest voter turnout since 1993. Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party campaigned on a platform of promising real change, which resonated with voters, giving the Liberals a clear majority of seats in the House of Commons and 39.5 per cent of the popular vote. Canadians showed that they wanted to uphold and participate in the democratic system.

One issue that, for the wrong reasons, garnered a great deal of attention as a hot button election topic was the Federal Court of Appeal decision on whether an individual could wear the niqab while taking their citizenship oath. Stephen Harper drew the other party leaders into a polarized dialogue about Canadian values, women’s rights and religious freedom, a misleading debate, considering neither the Federal Court nor the Federal Court of Appeal addressed those issues in their decisions. The decisions of both courts on the issue of wearing a niqab during a citizenship oath was grounded in the fact that the Harper government tried to circumvent the law by passing “mandatory” policies — in doing so, the Conservatives disregarded the requirements of a democratic system based on the rule of law. Read the rest of this entry