DOCSLIB.ORG

Bedford V. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-329807 PD1 DATE: 2010/09/28

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bedford V. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-329807 PD1 DATE: 2010/09/28 CITATION: Bedford v. Canada, 2010 ONSC 4264 COURT FILE NO.: 07-CV-329807 PD1 DATE: 2010/09/28 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: ) ) TERRI JEAN BEDFORD, AMY ) Alan N. Young, for the Applicant Terri Jean LEBOVITCH AND VALERIE SCOTT ) Bedford Applicants ) Ron Marzel, for the Applicant Amy 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII) ) Lebovitch ) Stacey Nichols, for the Applicant Valerie - and - ) Scott ) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ) Michael H. Morris and Gail Sinclair, for the Respondent ) Respondent ) - and - ) ) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO ) Shelley Hallet and Christine Bartlett- Intervener ) Hughes, for the Intervener Attorney General ) of Ontario - and - ) ) THE CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP, ) Robert W. Staley, Derek J. Bell, and Ranjan REAL WOMEN OF CANADA AND THE ) K. Agarwal, for the Intervener the Christian CATHOLIC CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE ) Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada Intervener ) and the Catholic Civil Rights League ) )HEARD: October 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 26, 2009 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIMEL J.: TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 6 II. THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 6 III. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ........................................................................... 8 1. The Applicants ............................................................................................................. 8 2. The Attorney General of Canada (the “Respondent”) ................................................. 9 3. The Attorney General of Ontario (“AG Ontario”)....................................................... 9 4. The Christian Legal Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada, and the Catholic Civil Rights League (“CLF”).............................................................................................. 10 IV. THE ROLE OF THE COURT ...................................................................................... 10 V. THE APPLICANTS........................................................................................................ 11 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII) 1. Terri Jean Bedford ..................................................................................................... 11 2. Amy Lebovitch .......................................................................................................... 13 3. Valerie Scott............................................................................................................... 14 VI. STANDING...................................................................................................................... 15 1. Private Interest Standing ............................................................................................ 16 2. Public Interest Standing ............................................................................................. 18 3. Should Ms. Bedford and Ms. Scott be Granted Public Interest Standing? ................ 18 VII. STARE DECISIS ............................................................................................................. 19 VIII. THE EVIDENCE ............................................................................................................ 24 1. Evidence from Prostitutes and Former Prostitutes..................................................... 24 2. Evidence from Police Officers and an Assistant Crown Attorney............................. 25 3. Evidence from Other Lay Witnesses ......................................................................... 26 4. Expert Evidence ......................................................................................................... 26 (A) Prostitution Research and its Limitations......................................................... 26 a. The Role of the Expert .............................................................................. 27 b. Admissibility of Expert Evidence ............................................................. 28 c. Independence of Expert Witnesses............................................................ 30 (B) Areas of Agreement and Disagreement amongst the Experts .......................... 30 (C) Summary of the Applicants’ Expert Evidence ................................................. 31 a. The Nature of Prostitution in Canada........................................................ 31 b. Violence in Prostitution............................................................................. 31 c. Effect of the Impugned Provisions............................................................ 32 (D) Summary of Respondent’s Expert Evidence.................................................... 33 5. Evidence Contained in Government Debates and Reports ........................................ 34 (A) Early Developments ......................................................................................... 34 (B) The Fraser Report - 1985................................................................................. 35 (C) The Three-Year Review: Synthesis Report - 1989 ........................................... 37 (D) The Calgary/Winnipeg Study on the Victimization of Prostitutes - 1994........ 38 (E) The Federal, Provincial and Territorial Deputy Justice Ministers’ Working Group on Prostitution - 1998............................................................................ 39 (F) House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws - 2006...................................................... 40 2 6. International Evidence ............................................................................................... 44 (A) Respondent’s Witnesses: International Experts ............................................... 45 (B) Applicants’ Reply Witnesses: International Experts........................................ 46 (C) The Netherlands................................................................................................ 47 (D) New Zealand..................................................................................................... 48 (E) Germany ........................................................................................................... 49 (F) Australia ........................................................................................................... 50 (G) Sweden ............................................................................................................. 51 (H) Nevada, United States of America ................................................................... 52 IX. THE CHARTER ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 53 1. General Approach to Charter Analysis ..................................................................... 53 2. Legislative Objectives................................................................................................ 54 (A) Is Morality a Constitutionally Valid Legislative Objective?............................ 54 (B) Canada’s Prostitution Laws: History, Interpretation, Objectives..................... 56 2010 ONSC 4264 (CanLII) a. History of s. 210 - Bawdy-House Provisions ............................................ 58 b. Objective of s. 210 - Bawdy-House Provisions ........................................ 59 c. Interpretation of s. 210 - Bawdy-House Provisions .................................. 61 1) s. 210(1) ........................................................................................... 62 2) s. 210(2)(a) and s. 210(2)(b) ............................................................ 62 3) s. 210(2)(c)....................................................................................... 63 d. History of s. 212(1)(j) - Living on the Avails of Prostitution ................... 63 e. Objective of s. 212(1)(j) - Living on the Avails of Prostitution................ 66 f. Interpretation of s. 212(1)(j) - Living on the Avails of Prostitution.......... 67 g. History of s. 213(1)(c) - Communicating for the Purpose of Prostitution. 70 h. Objective of s. 213(1)(c) - Communicating for the Purpose of Prostitution ................................................................................................................... 71 i. Interpretation of s. 213(1)(c) - Communicating for the Purpose of Prostitution ................................................................................................ 72 X. SECTION 7 OF THE CHARTER.................................................................................. 73 1. Do the Laws Deprive the Applicants of Liberty? ...................................................... 73 2. Do the Laws Deprive the Applicants of Security of the Person?............................... 74 (A) What Level of Causality is Required to Find a Threshold Violation of Security of the Person? ................................................................................................... 75 (B) What is the Harm Faced by Prostitutes in Canada? ......................................... 77 a. Can the Harm Faced by Prostitutes in Canada be Reduced?..................... 79 b. Government Reports.................................................................................. 79 c. Expert Evidence......................................................................................... 80 1) The Applicants’ Experts................................................................... 80 2) The Respondent’s Experts
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth
    Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites © Human Rights Consortium, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NCND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN 978-1-912250-13-4 (2018 PDF edition) DOI 10.14296/518.9781912250134 Institute of Commonwealth Studies School of Advanced Study University of London Senate House Malet Street London WC1E 7HU Cover image: Activists at Pride in Entebbe, Uganda, August 2012. Photo © D. David Robinson 2013. Photo originally published in The Advocate (8 August 2012) with approval of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG). Approval renewed here from SMUG and FARUG, and PRIDE founder Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera. Published with direct informed consent of the main pictured activist. Contents Abbreviations vii Contributors xi 1 Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity in the Commonwealth: from history and law to developing activism and transnational dialogues 1 Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites 2
    [Show full text]
  • Vriend V. Alberta, Supreme Court of Canada
    Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493 Delwin Vriend, Gala-Gay and Lesbian Awareness Society of Edmonton, Gay and Lesbian Community Centre of Edmonton Society and Dignity Canada Dignité for Gay Catholics and Supporters Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Alberta and Her Majesty’s Attorney General in and for the Province of Alberta Respondents and The Attorney General of Canada, the Attorney General for Ontario, the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE), the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), the Foundation for Equal Families, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Bar Association -- Alberta Branch, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies (CASHRA), the Canadian AIDS Society, the Alberta and Northwest Conference of the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Focus on the Family (Canada) Association Interveners Indexed as: Vriend v. Alberta File No.: 25285. 1997: November 4; 1998: April 2. - 2 - Present: Lamer C.J. and L’Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka,* Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Practice -- Standing -- Charter challenge -- Teacher’s employment at college terminated because of his homosexuality -- Provincial human rights legislation not including sexual orientation as prohibited ground of discrimination -- Whether appellants have standing to challenge legislative provisions other than those relating to employment -- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 15(1) -- Individual’s Rights Protection Act, R.S.A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Offences Act
    LAWS OF KENYA The Sexual Offences Act NO 3 OF 2006 Revised Edition 2009 (2008) Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney General. 2 No. 3 of 2006 Sexual Offences Act Rev. 2009] THE SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT No. 3 of 2006 Date of Assent: 14th July, 2006 Date of Commencement: 21st July, 2006 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1- Short title. 2- Interpretation. 3- Rape. 4- Attempted rape. 5- Sexual assault. 6- Compelled or induced indecent acts. 7- Acts which cause penetration or indecent acts committed within the view of a child or person with mental disabilities. 8- Defilement. 9- Attempted defilement. 10- Gang rape. 11- Indecent act with child or adult. 12- Promotion of sexual offences with a child. 13- Child trafficking. 14- Child sex tourism. 15- Child prostitution. 16- Child pornography. 17- Exploitation of prostitution. 18- Trafficking for sexual exploitation. 19- Prostitution of persons with mental disabilities. 20- Incest by male persons. 21- Incest by female persons. 22- Test of relationship. 23- Sexual harassment. 24- Sexual offences relating to position of authority and persons in position of trust. 25- Sexual relationship which pre-date position of authority or trust. 26- Deliberate transmission of HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease. 27- Administering a substance with intent. 28- Distribution of substance by juristic persons. 29- Cultural and religious sexual offences. 30- Non-disclosure of conviction of sexual offences. 31- Vulnerable witnesses. 32- Vulnerable witnesses to be notified of protective measures. 33- Evidence of surrounding circumstances and impact of sexual offence. Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • The National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Anothe
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 11/98 THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR GAY AND LESBIAN EQUALITY First Applicant THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Second Applicant versus THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE First Respondent THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Second Respondent THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE WITWATERSRAND Third Respondent Heard on : 27 August 1998 Decided on : 9 October 1998 JUDGMENT ACKERMANN J: Introduction [1] This matter concerns the confirmation of a declaration of constitutional invalidity of - (a) section 20A of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957; (b) the inclusion of sodomy as an item in Schedule 1 of the Criminal SACHS J Procedure Act, 1977 (“Schedule 1 of the CPA”); and (c) the inclusion of sodomy as an item in the schedule to the Security Officers Act, 1987 (“the Security Officers Act Schedule”); made by Heher J in the Witwatersrand High Court on 8 May 1998.1 These declarations were made and referred to this Court for confirmation under section 172(2)(a) of the 1996 Constitution.2 [2] The full order made by Heher J reads as follows: “1. It is declared that the common-law offence of sodomy is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996. 2. It is declared that the common-law offence of commission of an unnatural sexual act is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 to the extent that it criminalises acts committed by a man or between men which, if committed by a woman or between women or between a man and a woman, would not constitute an offence.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Offences Act
    MINISTRY OF THELAWS ATTORNEY OF TRINIDAD GENERAL AND AND LEGAL TOBAGO AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CHAPTER 11:28 Act 27 of 1986 Amended by 20 of 1994 31 of 2000 12 of 2012 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1–23 .. UNOFFICIAL VERSION L.R.O. UPDATED TO 31ST DECEMBER 2016 MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALLAWS OF AND TRINIDAD LEGAL AFFAIRS AND TOBAGOwww.legalaffairs.gov.tt 2 Chap. 11:28 Sexual Offences Note on Subsidiary Legislation This Chapter contains no subsidiary legislation. UNOFFICIAL VERSION UPDATED TO 31ST DECEMBER 2016 MINISTRY OF THELAWS ATTORNEY OF TRINIDAD GENERAL AND AND LEGAL TOBAGO AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Sexual Offences Chap. 11:28 3 CHAPTER 11:28 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. Act inconsistent with Constitution. 2. Interpretation. PART I OFFENCES AND THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES 3. Indictable offences. 4. Rape. 4A. Grievous sexual assault. 5. (Repealed by Act No. 31 of 2000). 6. to. (Repealed by Act No. 12 of 2012). 8. 9.} Incest. 10. (Repealed by Act No. 12 of 2012). 11. 12.} Sexual intercourse with mentally subnormal person. 12A. Power of arrest. 13. Buggery. 14. Bestiality. 15. Indecent assault. 16. Serious indecency. 17. Procuration. 18. Procuring defilement of a person. 19. Detention of a person. 20. Abduction of a female. 21. (Repealed by Act No. 12 of 2012). 22. Suppression of brothels. UNOFFICIAL VERSION L.R.O. UPDATED TO 31ST DECEMBER 2016 MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALLAWS OF AND TRINIDAD LEGAL AFFAIRS AND TOBAGOwww.legalaffairs.gov.tt 4 Chap.
    [Show full text]
  • Mulvihill, N. (2019). Is It Time to Drop the Term 'Prostitution' from Policy Discourse? Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 3(
    Mulvihill, N. (2019). Is it time to drop the term ‘prostitution’ from policy discourse? Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 3(3), 385-393. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868019X15682997312551 Peer reviewed version Link to published version (if available): 10.1332/239868019X15682997312551 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Policy Press at https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/tpp/jgbv/2019/00000003/00000003/art00009 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Journal of Gender-Based Violence • vol xx • no xx • 1–9 • © Centre for Gender and Violence Research University of Bristol 2019 • Print ISSN 2398-6808 • Online ISSN 2398-6816 https://doi.org/10.1332/239868019X15682997312551 open space Is it time to drop the term ‘prostitution’ from policy discourse? Natasha Mulvihill, [email protected] University of Bristol, UK In this paper, I wish to explore whether it is time to drop the use of the term ‘prostitution’ in English policy discourse. I argue here that ‘prostitution’ is a culturally loaded term and is insufficiently precise in describing the different contexts in which the exchange of sex for money or other resources between adults takes place. This lack of clarity has implications for policy action, which in turn materially affects the lives of those involved in the sex industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium
    Court File No: 26858 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: LITTLE SISTERS BOOK AND ART EMPORIUM B.C. CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION JAMES EATON DEVA AND GUY ALLEN BRUCE SMYTHE Appellants (Plaintiffs) and MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Respondents (Defendants) ______________________________ APPELLANT'S FACTUM ______________________________ PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The principal business of the Appellant, Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium ("Little Sisters") is the sale of books and magazines most of which are written by and for gay men and lesbians. Most of the books and magazines sold by Little Sisters are published in the United States and imported into Canada by Little Sisters. The Appellant, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association has demonstrated a longstanding, genuine and continuing concern for the rights of disadvantaged groups or individuals in Canada and has likewise opposed censorship of allegedly obscene books and magazines. Amended Statement of Claim, paras. 6, 7 & 2. Appellants' Record ("AR") Vol. I, pp. 37, 36. 2. From about 1985 and from time to time to the trial, hundreds of books and magazines that Little Sisters has purchased and sought to import into Canada have been detained, prohibited and/or destroyed by customs officials pursuant to the Customs Legislation on the grounds that the books and magazines were "obscene". Amended Statement of Claim, para. 8. AR Vol. I, pp. 37-38. 3. This case concerns the constitutionality of Tariff Code 9956(a) of Schedule VII (now Tariff Item 9899.00.00) and s.
    [Show full text]
  • Prostitution Legislation and Human Trafficking
    International Relations and Security Network ETH Zurich Leonhardshalde 21, LEH 8092 Zurich Switzerland ISN Special Issue January 2007 Prostitution legislation and human trafficking This month's newsletter focuses on prostitution legislation and human trafficking. In the last decade a few European countries have reformed their laws on prostitution. These reforms were initiated for various reasons and with differing outcomes, some of which are still being investigated while others have come under heavy criticism. In the case of the UK, the laws in question were old and outdated, and therefore needed to be adjusted to the changed societal circumstances. Since 2000, the UK Home Office, which is responsible for this issue, has continuously sought to improve the situation for both people working in the business, as well as communities and citizens suffering from its effects in every-day life. The motive behind Sweden's law reform had been to work toward the abolition of prostitution and to better protect the sex worker. The sex worker law that was subsequently introduced in 1999 defined the customer of sexual services as the offender of the law, whereas the sex worker was seen as the victim. Whether it was effective in terms of the well-being of the workers to clearly define their customers as law offenders has now come under heavy criticism. Many argued that prostitution in Sweden now takes place less openly and therefore is less controllable, which may make it even more dangerous for sex workers, since they are forced to work in a "legal vacuum." Additionally, it becomes very difficult for police and the state to control prostitution and to persecute law offenders under these conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Offences Act
    LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT CHAPTER 11:28 Act 27 of 1986 Amended by 20 of 1994 31 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1–25 .. 1/2006 L.R.O. 1/2006 UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2007 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt 2 Chap. 11:28 Sexual Offences Note on Subsidiary Legislation This Chapter contains no subsidiary legislation. UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2007 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt Sexual Offences Chap. 11:28 3 CHAPTER 11:28 SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. Act inconsistent with Constitution. 2. Interpretation. PART I OFFENCES AND THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF OFFENCES 3. Indictable offences. 4. Rape. 4A. Grievous sexual assault. 5. (Repealed by Act No. 31 of 2000). 6. Sexual intercourse with female under fourteen years. 7. Sexual intercourse with female between fourteen and sixteen years. 8. Sexual intercourse with male under sixteen years. 9. Incest. 10. Sexual intercourse with adopted minor, etc. 11. Sexual intercourse with minor employee. 12. Sexual intercourse with mentally subnormal person. 12A. Power of arrest. 13. Buggery. 14. Bestiality. 15. Indecent assault. 16. Serious indecency. 17. Procuration. 18. Procuring defilement of a person. 19. Detention of a person. 20. Abduction of a female. 21. Householder, etc., permitting defilement of a minor under sixteen years of age. 22. Suppression of brothels. L.R.O. 1/2006 UPDATED TO DECEMBER 31ST 2007 LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO MINISTRY OF LEGAL AFFAIRS www.legalaffairs.gov.tt 4 Chap.
    [Show full text]
  • A Popular Version of the Sexual Offence Act 2006 a SIMPLIFIED VERSION of the SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2006
    A popular version of the Sexual Offence Act 2006 A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2006 A popular version of the Sexual Offences Act 2006 Contents Pages Foreword i Acknowledgments ii 1. Background and Evolution and purpose of the Act 1 2. Important features of the Act 2 3. Part One – Offences created by the Act 3 • Section 3 – Rape 3 • Section 4 – Attempted Rape 3 • Section 5- Sexual Assault 3 • Exceptions to a charge of sexual assault 3 • Section 8– Defilement 3 • Defences to the offence of defilement 4 • Exceptions to the defences to defilement 4 4. Section 9- Attempted defilement 4 5. Section 10- Gang rape 4 6. Section 11- Indecent Act 5 • Defences to a charge of committing an indecent act 5 7. Section 12- Promotion of a sexual offence with a child 5 8. Section 13-Child Trafficking 6 9. Section 14- Child sex Tourism 7 10. Section 15- Child Prostitution 7 11. Section 16- Child Pornography 8 • Publications and activities which do not amount to child pornography 9 12. Section 17- Exploitation of Prostitution 9 A popular version of the Sexual Offence Act 2006 13. Section 19- Prostitution of persons with mental disabilities 9 14. section 20- Incest 9 15. Section 23- Sexual harassment 10 16. Section 24- Sexual offences by persons in positions of authority or trust 10 17. Section 26- Deliberate transmission of HIV and other S.T.D’s 10 18. Section 27- Administering a substance with intent 11 19. Section -29- Cultural and religious offences 11 20. Part 2- Provisions relating to adducing evidence 12 21.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Paths to Protect Non-Normative Families
    Corso di Dottorato in Studi Giuridici Comparati ed Europei XXXI ciclo Tesi di Dottorato Marital status discrimination in the allocation of rights, obligations, and benefits: Legal paths to protect non-normative families Relatore Dottoranda Prof. Roberto Toniatti Nausica Palazzo anno accademico 2017/18 Candidato: Nausica Palazzo Marital status discrimination in the allocation of rights, obligations, and benefits: Legal paths to protect non-normative families Relatore Prof. Roberto Toniatti Anno Accademico 2017/18 Indirizzo specialistico in scienze pubblicistiche XXXI ciclo Esame finale: 29 marzo 2019, ore 10.00 Commissione esaminatrice: Prof.ssa Luisa Antoniolli, Università di Trento Prof.ssa Elena Ioriatti, Università di Trento Prof. Francesco Palermo, Università di Verona To each and every person I met throughout this journey CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... 7 PREFACE ........................................................................................................ 9 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY Introduction ...................................................................................................... 11 1. Why a dissertation in comparative (public) family law? ............................. 22 2. Comparative method and family law: a functionalist-plus approach .......... 28 3. Definitional section: what is “family”? ........................................................ 39 PART I: GENERAL PART WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? WHAT THE
    [Show full text]
  • Victimhood and Socio-Legal Narratives of Hate Crime Against Queer Communities in Canada, 1985-2003
    VICTIMHOOD AND SOCIO-LEGAL NARRATIVES OF HATE CRIME AGAINST QUEER COMMUNITIES IN CANADA, 1985-2003 b y Allyson M. Lunny A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Doctoral degree. Centre of Criminology University of Toronto © Copyright by Allyson M. Lunny 2011 Victimhood and Socio-legal Narratives of Hate Crime Against Queer Communities in Canada, 1985-2003 Allyson M. Lunny Doctoral Degree Centre of Criminology University of Toronto 2011 Abstract This dissertation analyzes personal and institutional narratives that shape the Canadian phenomenon of anti-LGBT violence as hate crime and locate queers within and without the discursive figure of the responsible, legitimate and undeserving victim of hate crime. These socio-legal narratives were taken from interviews with LGBT community activists involved in anti-violence projects, mainstream and gay print news media reportage of two notable homicides, Parliamentary debates of the enhanced sentencing provision that sought to include ‘sexual orientation’ to the list of biased motivating factors, Senate witness testimony on the amendment to Canada’s hate propaganda statutes which sought to include ‘sexual orientation’ to the list of protected groups, interviews with police officers who had direct experience with anti-hate crime initiatives, and judicial reasons for sentence. Utilizing an interdisciplinary analysis and drawing on hate crime scholarship and victimology, this dissertation asks: how is legitimate and, consequently, illegitimate LGBT hate crime victimization being represented and constituted through Canadian socio-legal narratives? ii In revealing how socio-legal actors and institutions have positioned LGBT individuals discursively within or without legitimate victimhood, that is, within and without the status of innocent victim deserving of social empathy and socio-legal institutional response, my dissertation illustrates how the spectre of illegitimate victimization is repeatedly invoked in socio-legal narratives of anti-LGBT hate crime.
    [Show full text]