R v Morgentaler: how far we have come, and still need to go

Wednesday, February 6, 2013
R v Morgentaler: how far we have come, and still need to go

By Lucianna Ciccocioppo / Illustration by Justin Renteria

Leading constitutional and human rights players gathered at the Faculty of Law on January 29, 2013, for a stimulating discussion to mark the momentous Supreme Court of Canada decision that struck down the country’s restrictive abortion law a quarter century ago.

The Afghan Apostate Case: Issues of Law and Development

Recent events in the Muslim world have occupied front page news for weeks.  Between the violence generated by the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, and the recent capital case against the Afghan who converted from Islam to Christianity, questions about the nature and humanity of Islamic law loom large.  Each instance, however, seems to be a symptom of a larger problem: namely, defining what Sharia is and its place in modern constitutional society.

In the Afghan apostate case, for instance, the judge was in an unenviable position.  Article 1 of the Afghan constitution states that Afghanistan is an Islamic republic. Article 2 declares Islam to be the state religion, while subsection (2) states that religious minorities are free to exercise their faith “within the limits of the provisions of law.”

This begs the question: what defines those limits?  Article 3 states unequivocally what those limits are:  No law can contravene Islamic law. Consequently, a Muslim can live in Afghanistan in peace. A non-Muslim can also live in Afghanistan without suffering persecution for his or her faith.  But if a Muslim converts to Christianity, this violates general provisions of Islamic law; any law drafted under Article 2(2) that protects the apostate would violate Article 3. 

Room in the Bed for Everyone

A few weeks ago, an odd thing appeared on the New York Times weddings page. There were three wedding announcements, but the same husband appeared in each one. It took a few moments for you to realize that it was actually an ad for the premiere of Big Love, HBO's new drama series on polygamy (which runs on The Movie Network in Ontario).

The series is created and produced by creative and romantic partners Mark V Olsen and Will Scheffer, two gay men who are rather obviously and provocatively riffing on the controversies around same-sex marriage.

The mock announcements nicely demonstrate the connection: the New York Times has been announcing gay and lesbian unions since 2002, two years before same-sex marriages were legal anywhere in the US. A wedding announcement in the New York Times is the ultimate sign of arrival, status writ large - even if there is nothing legal about it. The fake announcement of the three fictitious Big Love marriages played on the same gap between cultural and legal recognition.

The show's creators don't recoil from the association between same-sex marriage and polygamy. They seem to delight in playing on it.

Federal Electoral Reform - Ontario Wants In!

“The West wants in” was often repeated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper during his years in opposition.  A principal Western Canadian grievance has been the under- representation of Western Canada in the federal House of Commons.  Alberta and British Columbia continue to attract immigrants and migrants from the rest of Canada and to grow in size relative to the rest of the country.  But, the argument goes, the number of Members of Parliament they send to Ottawa has not kept pace with new demographic realities.

However, the situation is far more complex that that.  The Conservative Party platform promises to address the under- representation of not only Alberta and British Columbia, but also Ontario, with good reason.   Actually, it is Ontario that is vastly under-represented in the House of Commons. 

Let’s look at some numbers.  The current House of Commons has 308 members.  Strictly on the basis of representation by population, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario should have 31, 40 and 117 MPs respectively.  However, the actual figures are 28, 36 and 106.  In other words, these provinces are 18 MPs short.

Goliath Wins Again

The David and Goliath story continues; Goliath is still winning.

Little Sister's Bookstore's protracted struggle with Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) — formerly called Canada Customs — just keeps hitting the wall, thanks in large part to the Supreme Court Of Canada.

In its latest decision the Supreme Court last month refused to award Little Sister's with advance costs to fund its ongoing lawsuit over repeated seizures of its books by border cops.

It's not like the Supreme Court hasn't acknowledged that CBSA discriminates against Little Sister's. The seizures go back 20 years. In 2000 the Supreme Court told the agency in no uncertain terms to stop violating Little Sister's Charter rights by targeting lesbian and gay material. But the court upheld the border cops' censorship regime.

In 2002 Little Sister's filed an appeal against the seizure of two collections of gay adult comics, some with SM themes. Border cops then seized a few more titles, this time gay erotic fiction collections. Preparing once again to go into battle against an opponent with very deep pockets (funded by us taxpayers), Little Sister's lawyer Joe Arvay asked the judge to make a rarely used order for advance costs, to help Little Sister's pay for its formidable legal bills.

Minority Vote Dilution in Canada

Although all adult citizens have the right to vote under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the worth of one’s vote depends upon where one lives. Representation from Canada’s three fastest growing provinces — Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario — is increasingly out of step with demographic realities. The average ballot cast in these provinces is worth less than one cast in any other province. Moreover, within provinces, rural ridings are overrepresented in relation to urban constituencies.

Adam Sandler and the Politics of Same Sex Marriage

Adam Sandler’s new film I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry is causing quite a stir.   In the film, Chuck (Adam Sandler) and Larry (Kevin James) are New York fire fighters (it doesn’t get any more heroic) who enter into a sham gay marriage.  Although the film might not to be everyone's taste (typical Sandler slapstick comedy with lots of homophobic jokes thrown in for good measure), it may tell us alot about the politics of same sex marriage in America.

In the film, Chuck and Larry are both very, very straight, but Larry needs to get married to secure some employment benefits for his children.  They try a domestic partnership first, but it turns out to not be enough.  So, they come to Canada, get hitched, and go back home as a ‘married’ couple.The rest of the story plays out in the typical slap stick comedy form:  a specialist (Steve Buscemi) investigates the couple to see if they are “really” gay, Chuck falls for the lawyer (Jessica Biel) but can’t do anything about it because he is supposed to be gay, the guys at the firehouse shun the gay boys, blah, blah, blah.   Eventually, it all turns out well, with the guys at the firehouse seeing the error of their ways and support Chuck and Larry.  The real gay folks get married, and the real straight folks end up with straight folks, and everyone is supposed to feel good.

Conference: Social Science Evidence in Charter Litigation

The David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights Presents

Social Science Evidence in Charter Litigation:
Developments in 30 Years of Fact Finding

November 9, 2012
8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

Flavelle House (78 Queen's Park),
Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Pages