Law, politics and gender — Alberta’s gone wild
By Rebecca Bromwich, Canadian Bar Association, Ottawa
I am writing this on April 23rd, 2012, the day of a historic election in Alberta. Media headlines across the country are dominated by attention to the question of what may become of Alberta’s forty–one year old PC dynasty. Albeit less prominently, a second story, one that is not about partisan politics but equality under the law and in selecting lawmakers through politics, has found its way into the headlines too…
The Law Society of Manitoba’s Equity Ombudsperson program
By Brenlee Carrington Trepel,The Law Society of Manitoba, Winnipeg
As it marks its first decade, the Law Society of Manitoba’s Equity Ombudsperson program continues to play a unique role for Manitoba’s legal profession. Since its inception, the office has received more than 5,000 contacts from lawyers, articling students, law students, support staff and clients of the legal profession.
The case for gender neutral language
By Patricia Lane, Taylor McCaffrey LLP, Winnipeg
“Dear Madams, Attention John Smith.” If you received this salutation in a letter sent to your law firm the disconnect would be obvious. Yet the practice of addressing letters, “Dear Sirs, Attention Jane Smith” persists for some.
Transition not transitory
By Kathryn Dumke, Dumke MacLeod, Bridgewater, N.S.
I am a civil litigator with emphasis on commercial and civil litigation. I also work on corporate and commercial transactions and am a partner in a two woman boutique firm. In the summer of 2010, I made a very significant life decision. I decided to reveal my true gender to those my family, friends, colleagues and my profession and to present myself to the world as a woman.
NAWL Survey — The one good thing about bad news
By Rebecca Bromwich, Canadian Bar Association, Ottawa
Since 2006, the National Association of Women in the Law (NAWL) has been conducting an annual survey on retention and promotion of women in law firms. Results of the most recent such survey were released in October, 2011.
Family Status Discrimination in BC: A Discussion Paper
By Krista James,
Canadian Centre for Elder Law, Vancouver
In May 2011, the British Columbia Law Institute began work on the BC Family Status Legal Research Project. The purpose of this project, which was funded by the Law Foundation of BC, is to clarify the scope and meaning of family status discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code.
The CBA Equality Committee — Where do we go from here?
By Mark L. Berlin, Institute On Governance, Ottawa
Next year marks the 17th anniversary of the establishment of the CBA’s Equality Committee. Despite its work over the past decades, some still ask whether there continues to be a need for such a group.
Accessible employment at Cohen Highly — VIDEO
Watch how one southwestern Ontario law firm hires based on ability and ability only.
Remembering December 6 — 22 years since the massacre at École Polytechnique
A look back at the École Polytechnique massacre to honour the 14 women who lost their lives 22 yars ago.
CPD: On leave? Busy? You'll want to read this!
Requirements for PD credits don’t have to pose a barrier to your professional success…
|
The CBA Equality Committee at the Canadian Legal Conference in Vancouver
Diversity in Action: Creating and Implementing a Diversity Plan in your Organization - PD session
Monday August 13,
8:30 – 11:30
The importance of diversity plans can no longer be pushed to the back burner of an organization’s strategic plan. The Canadian Corporate Counsel Association, the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Societies across Canada have recognized the need for education and resources dedicated to this issue. Similarly, businesses have identified a solid case for creating and implementing a diversity plan. The role of in-house counsel in this area cannot be minimized. By learning how to develop, implement, evaluate and enforce the policy, your department can be the catalyst for change within your organization and in dealings with your outside providers. Featuring speakers
Wendy King,
Rhonda Singer,
Terrie-Lynne Devonish, and
Level Chan.
Coffeehouse - All CLC registranst are welcome!
The CBA Equality Committee will be holding an informal coffeehouse on Monday, August 13, at 10:00 a.m. For details please contact Rebecca Bromwich, staff lawyer at the CBA.
|
Law, politics and gender — Alberta’s gone wild
By Rebecca Bromwich
I am writing this on April 23rd, 2012, the day of a historic election in Alberta. Media headlines across the country are dominated by attention to the question of what may become of Alberta’s forty–one year old PC dynasty.
Albeit less prominently, a second story, one that is not about partisan politics but equality under the law and in selecting lawmakers through politics, has found its way into the headlines too. It is of particular interest to persons interested in equality and the law in Canada that this is an unprecedented contest because the two front runners are women, and a third contender from a mainstream political party is a racialized man. The campaign has been touted as a blazon of western progressiveness. Claims have been made that the demographics of the parties’ leadership belie stereotypes about Albertan social conservatism and regressiveness.
Perhaps. Certainly, Alberta is the province from which the Famous Five hailed, the home province of Chief Justice MacLachlin, and, more recently, the place where the mayors of the major cities are, respectively, Muslim and Jewish.
However, this election is worth looking at critically from the perspective of how gender bias continues to operate in our society to alter people’s perceptions and constrain people’s actions. One need look no further than the bright paint on the Wild Rose campaign bus, and the tremendous outpouring of jokes and criticism to which it gave rise, to see that gender was front and centre in this campaign. (There was an unfortunate placement of the candidate’s headshot in proximity to two tires.) If you don’t know what I am talking about, look on YouTube at the coverage it received on Leno.
That peoples’ perceptions and performances of gender have played a major part in this campaign has also been apparent in less humorous ways. The emergence of the female candidates’ respective fertility as an issue in media reports, on Twitter, and even in the leaders’ debate (where one candidate opened and closed by saying “I am a mother”), gives one pause. Constant reference to the relative attractiveness of the candidates has been pervasive in social media, and barely submerged in media reports. References in editorials to whether each female candidate was “shrill” were pervasive. Graduate students in media studies and art for years to come will have a great deal to work with should they choose to critically unpack the photographs published of each candidate by major media outlets. The icing on the cake of all of these pictures is the front page of today’s National Post, where a blue-veiled leader, eyes demurely downcast, appears to be in costume as the Virgin Mary.
It is abundantly clear from this campaign that social perceptions about gender and race are very much a part of political and media discourse in Canada. That they are significant in the United States was made obvious in the 2008 Presidential election, nowhere more astutely than on “Saturday Night Live.”
The political arena is notoriously a place of cruelty to women who venture there. Ask Sarah Palin, Belinda Stronach or Helena Guergis if you have any doubts. Or check out the products on Amazon.com that depict Hillary Clinton. (I am specifically thinking of a souvenir nutcracker, but there are other items too).
The question that gives me pause, and which I think all CBA members should continue to consider, is, if gender bias, stereotypes, images and performances are such a pervasive and powerful force when lawmakers are selected by the public, how do these things play out where the law is being litigated, reformed or simply practiced?
Even setting aside the looming partisan outcome of Alberta’s 2012 provincial election, it is a historic moment for Canadians in demonstrating how far we have come and how much Canadians still struggle, with equality and the law.
Rebecca Bromwich is a staff lawyer at the Canadian Bar Association in Ottawa.
The Law Society of Manitoba’s Equity Ombudsperson program
By Brenlee Carrington Trepel
Originally published in the Manitoba Law Journal.
As it marks its first decade, the Law Society of Manitoba’s Equity Ombudsperson program continues to play a unique role for Manitoba’s legal profession. Since its inception, the office has received more than 5,000 contacts from lawyers, articling students, law students, support staff and clients of the legal profession.1 The Equity Ombudsperson began as a pilot project of the Law Society of Manitoba in November of 2001. It became a permanent program in 2003.
Description of the program
The Equity Ombudsperson provides confidential and neutral assistance to lawyers, support staff working for legal employers, articling students, law students and clients who have concerns about discrimination, harassment or accommodation. I cannot reveal to anyone, including the Law Society, the identity of those who contact me about a complaint or the identity of those about whom complaints are made. My only reporting to the Law Society is of a general statistical nature in setting out the number and type of calls received.
The goal of the Equity Ombudsperson is to resolve problems and to prevent them as well. In doing so, I maintain a neutral position and do not provide legal advice. I can tell complainants about the options available to them, which include filing a formal complaint with the Law Society or with the Human Rights Commission; commencing a civil action, or having me attempt to resolve informally or mediate a discrimination or harassment dispute.
The Equity Ombudsperson is also available to consult with and assist any private or public law office wanting to raise staff awareness about the importance of a respectful workplace environment. I am available to assist law firms in developing office policies on parental leave, alternative work schedules, harassment and discrimination, accommodation and a respectful workplace. I can provide educational seminars for members of firms, am available for personal speaking engagements and informal meetings, or can talk confidentially with a firm about a particular problem. The services of the Equity Ombudsperson are provided free of charge.
1 Carrington Trepel, Brenlee. Annual Report of the Equity Ombusperson, The Law Society of Manitoba, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
Brenlee Carrington Trepel is the Equity Ombudsperson at The Law Society of Manitoba, a lawyer, mediator and University of Manitoba Faculty of Law sessional instructor.
The case for gender neutral language
By Pat Lane
“Dear Madams, Attention John Smith.” If you received this salutation in a letter sent to your law firm the disconnect would be obvious. Yet the practice of addressing letters “Dear Sirs, Attention Jane Smith” persists for some. The theory explained is that the letter ought to be addressed to those who hold the legal liability, being the partners, and that naturally the use of the term “Sirs” is meant to include female partners in the same way as the reference to man is often intended to include all humanity, not just males.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it has been well established in social psychology research for decades now, that regardless of intention, this is not what is perceived by the recipient. The image that is formed when a male term is used is that of a male. Thus the use of the term “Sirs” to include both male and female partners perpetuates the stereotype of the holders of power being male.
There are many alternatives to this exclusionary practice. Writers can address the particular recipient by name, use the firm name, or refer to the Partners of the law firm. Another obvious choice is the use of “Dear Sirs or Madams.”
The business case for gender neutral language is simple. Proper gender inclusive language does not offend anyone. With gender exclusive language you run the risk of offending someone by the language being perceived as sexist. And from a purely practical perspective, in our global community it is often hard to know the gender from reading the name of the person. Why would you want to distract your correspondent from your message by using a wrong assumption on gender? Repeating the name of the person in the manner in which you received it is a safe choice.
The Women Lawyers Forum has been discussing the need for gender neutral language in the courtroom, in formal documents, and in conversation as well as in correspondence. By way of an example, while the phrasing “Ladies and Gentlemen” can roll off the tongue pretty easily, “Gentlemen and … Lady” does not. While the person speaking in this example can be congratulated for making sure to include the one woman present, certainly the address “Counsel” is equally respectful, and would avoid the differentiation of counsel by gender, which really isn't necessary or desirable. My own feeling about the term “lady” is that it carries with it a historic expectation of behavior that encourages deference rather than the assertive stance that is often most appropriate in the legal setting. I believe that typically this is not what is intended, but effect is often independent of intent.
The Women Lawyers Forum has set up a committee to prepare a recommendation for general reference on gender neutral language. We have completed our literature search and will seek to simplify the recommendations to a manageable format.
Perhaps the most problematic issue with respect to gendered language is the gender distinction in the singular third person pronoun (he and she). The problem is what to do when you want to refer to a single individual whose gender you do not know. Jila Ghomeshi in her book Grammar Matters: The Social Significance of How we Use Language (2010) states that prescriptive grammarians have traditionally recommended the use of “he” as a generic over “he or she.” She comments that in general conversation however, people often use “they” in spite of this being a plural reference, and that the use of the third person plural pronoun as a gender neutral singular has been attested as far back as the 14th century. While “they” involves a disagreement in number, “he” involves a disagreement in gender. She gives the example, “Somebody somewhere is eating their hat.”
If using “they/their/them” as a gender neutral singular just doesn't sit well with you, there are a number of other ways to replace or avoid using the pronoun “he.” Rosalie Maggio in her book, The Nonsexist Word Finder: A Dictionary of Gender-Free Usage (1988) suggests the following: rewrite the sentence in the plural; rewrite the sentence using we/us/our; use the second person (you); recast in the passive voice; rewrite to omit the pronoun entirely; replace the pronoun with an article (“an opinion” rather than “his opinion”); use “he and she” or “his and her,” particularly if you do not need to use a great many of them; or replace the pronoun with a noun.
In discussing the issue of gender neutral language with our colleagues, the Women Lawyers Forum members have found that people are often unaware of the gendered nature of their language. This is why we are seeking to bring this to the attention of the profession and create a guideline. We welcome your thoughts. In the meantime, a good starting place is to not use the term “Dear Sirs” unless you are addressing a known strictly male audience. And the days of referring to our legal assistants and office staff as “the girls” should be long gone. It is interesting that Maggio's book was published 24 years ago. We have had the answers. We just need to put them into practice.
Patricia Lane practices at Taylor McCaffrey LLP in Winnipeg.
Transition not transitory
By Kathryn Dumke
I am a civil litigator with emphasis on commercial and civil litigation. I also work on corporate and commercial transactions and am a partner in a two–woman boutique firm.
In the summer of 2010, I made a very significant life decision. I decided to reveal my true gender to my family, friends, colleagues, those in my profession and to present myself to the world as a woman.
Fifty–eight years ago I was born transsexual, that is, with a gender that did not match my sex. I have known otherness since I was four years old and have been certain that I was a girl born in the wrong body since I was nine. It is important to understand that a transsexual is born this way. Our need to achieve congruence between our gender and sex is not a choice but a fundamental need akin to being born with a congenital birth defect and wanting it fixed. I was born a woman with a defective body.
On March 22, 2011, I distributed an email to colleagues, my clients and the courts. At that time I was a member of Council in Nova Scotia and President of our local Barristers Association. I wrote in part this:
“After many years of discomfort and uncertainty, during which I identified as female but presented as male, I realized that I must come to grips with my inner identity and find congruence as a person. I have recently begun transition to my correct gender and gender expression, making myself whole as a person.
In the past, transsexuals have too often been sensationalized, but fortunately we have moved into an era where the reality of these changes can be treated with dignity and purpose. I am fortunate to have the benefit of the many — in business, medicine, academia, law, engineering and virtually every other field — who have gone before, and proved that we can be successful and productive. I am energized and confident that my new life will make me a better person and a better professional lawyer.
Having come to know you professionally, I am confident that we will be able to deal with this change in a professional manner.”
Revealing yourself as a transsexual and taking a step to transition your true self to become visible is a shocking event for most people in your life. Unless you have a congenital defect it is impossible for most to understand why someone would do as I did. In addition, I have deceived the people around me for most of my life presenting myself as a man when in fact I was a woman with a defective body. Having to work at presenting as a male internalized my growing up a woman, I became invisible. It meant denying myself, her, all direct communication with my social environment, be it friends, family and colleagues. For most of us transsexuals this deception is directly equated with survival. When I was a child and later an adolescent, revealing my true nature would have resulted in commitment to a mental institution, aversion therapy including electro shocks, and other approaches, none of which can be acceptable to a modern mind.
Another aspect of revealing who I am is the public’s association of transsexuals with the seedy underbelly of society and paraphilia, and the resulting consequences to your credibility and ability to find work, shelter and a decent life. It is often for this reason that transsexuals commit suicide. 42% of transsexual youth will make at least one serious attempt at suicide before 30 years of age and 48% of adult transsexuals will do the same.
Transsexuals are still included under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Consequently, we are viewed as mentally deficient, somehow perverted human beings that have very little visibility in a positive context in our society. I have yet to meet a transsexual person that wanted to be transsexual. We have no choice in the matter, and being transsexual is not a lifestyle but rather a congenital birth defect.
Lawyers understand the fundamental importance of “controlling the message.” To be able to transition as a 56 year old lawyer you cannot lose control of your message and cannot reveal yourself until ready. If you become aware of someone struggling with gender or sexual orientation issues you must respect their privacy even if you have by chance found out about it. A premature revelation that someone is a transsexual sensationalizes them and can lead to severe consequences. Many professionals lose their practice, their job, their families and professional friendships. For me this was a frightening concern. I saw myself having to move, transition, and re–appear somewhere else on the planet to try and create a new life for myself. We call this “going stealth,” meaning all ties to our roots, communities and family and friends must be cut to allow a new fully integrated life.
I decided against stealth, instead staying in the community in which I have practiced and lived for the last 22 years. My community and my professional colleagues have accepted me and my clients have stayed. I am treated with respect and continuing friendship, professional and otherwise. For that I am grateful.
Kathryn Dumke practices at Dumke MacLeod in Bridgewater, N.S.
NAWL Survey — The one good thing about bad news
By Rebecca Bromwich
Since 2006, the U.S. National Association of Women in the Law (NAWL) has been conducting an annual survey on retention and promotion of women in law firms. Results of the most recent such survey were released in October. The full text of a NAWL Report: National Survey On Retention And Promotion Of Women In Law Firms, October 2011 is available online.
This NAWL Survey is the only U.S. study that annually tracks professional progress of women in the nation's 200 largest law firms. It provides a comparative view of the careers and compensation of men and women lawyers at all levels of private practice, as well as analyzing data about the factors that influence career progression.
In brief, last year’s news isn’t good. What is remarkable and new about this news is that 2011 marks the first time that women’s progress towards equality with men in the legal profession is sliding backwards.
To quote the Report, this year, survey results point to a:
sobering picture of the prospects for women in “Biglaw.” Not only do women represent a decreasing percentage of lawyers in big firms, they have a far greater chance of occupying positions — like staff attorneys, counsel, and fixed-income equity partners — with diminished opportunity for advancement or participating in firm leadership.
In sum, at least in the U.S., continuing low levels of women in senior partnership/ managing roles are combining with increasing complexity of law firm hierarchies and lower numbers of women entering into private practice to produce continuing inequality for women in the legal profession. More specifically, the survey made the following findings:
- The percentages of women entering law schools and entering large firms in particular have apparently peaked and are now in decline;
- For the first time since 2006, percentages of women in large firms are decreasing;
- Women account for only 15% of equity partners and this number has been steady for 20 years;
- Women are much more likely than men to occupy positions that are not “partner-track”;
- Women are disproportionately either actually not bringing in business to firms or they are not credited with the business they bring in;
- Women at every stage of practice earn less than their male counterparts, with the biggest difference at the equity partner level;
- Women continue to be “markedly underrepresented” in the leadership ranks of firms; and
- Women represent an astonishing 80% of “fixed-income equity partners,” those lawyers in mixed-tier or other firms who are required to contribute capital but do not share in the overall profits of the firm.
Perhaps the one good thing about the bad news presented in the NAWL survey is that it documents the reality of problems with gender inequality. Repeated assertions are offered in law firms and in popular parlance more broadly that equality for women has been achieved both in the legal profession and in Canada as a whole. Such claims and erroneous assumptions can undermine current and future work and particularly compromise the resources allocated to that work. The NAWL report underscores ongoing need for continued efforts to ensure women can take an equal place in the legal profession alongside their male colleagues. While it presents US data, and the Canadian context has important unique dimensions, it is unlikely, especially where there is increasing globalization of legal work in North America, that picture is utterly different in Canada. The backsliding towards inequality that is newly evident speaks to a need even for redoubling of efforts towards retention of women in private practice.
At the same time, the report speaks to a growing need to focus efforts on women who are contemplating their career choices and have yet to take places in the legal profession. It implies that more young woman lawyers are now opting not to enter private practice. It further implies that more women are also choosing not to enter law school. Since this is a new problem, perhaps some different thought needs to go into questions of whether creative new means should be undertaken to ensure that women are encouraged to enter, as well as to remain in the profession.
Rebecca Bromwich is a staff lawyer at the Canadian Bar Association in Ottawa.
Family Status Discrimination in BC: A Discussion Paper
By Krista James
In May 2011, the British Columbia Law Institute (BCLI) began work on the BC Family Status Legal Research Project. The purpose of this project, which was funded by the Law Foundation of BC, is to clarify the scope and meaning of family status discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code.
Under the BC Code, as in most jurisdictions in Canada, family status is a prohibited ground of discrimination. The ground is defined in some provincial and territorial human rights statutes; however, the term family status is not defined in BC. Family status is one of the most recent additions to human rights codes in Canada, having first appeared in the Ontario Human Rights Code in 1981.1 Added to the BC Human Rights Code in 1992, the ground has been the subject of limited judicial interpretation and academic engagement as compared with other enumerated grounds.
The most recent jurisprudence on family status reveals inconsistent interpretations emanating from different jurisdictions in Canada, with some of the most restrictive interpretations coming out of BC. In Health Sciences Association of BC v. Campbell River and North Island Transition Society, the BC Court of Appeal fashioned the “serious interference with a substantial obligation” test for addressing employment discrimination on the basis of family status2, an approach subsequently rejected by the Federal Court as inconsistent with upper level jurisprudence on the test for prima facie discrimination3. Today, there is some confusion about what kinds of circumstances and actions are captured by the concept of family status discrimination.
The BCLI publication Family Status Discrimination in BC: A Discussion Paper explores the purpose and function of the family status ground in contemporary law and society, with particular attention to whether patterns of interpretation reflect respect for a diversity of family configuration and address systemic disadvantage linked to family relationships and caregiving responsibilities. The paper provides a history of the family status ground across Canada and conducts a thorough review of legislation and jurisprudence in relation to the family status ground in Canada. The publication underscores recurring themes from the jurisprudence, and identifies concerns with patterns in interpreting and applying the ground. The discussion paper concludes with a series of recommendations that map out a critical path forward for addressing systemic discrimination linked to family status, identifying areas for further legal research, law reform and policy development.
Although the focus of the discussion paper is BC, the paper is comparative in its orientation. The research included court, human rights tribunal and labour grievance decisions from across Canada. The paper highlights relevant international covenants and conventions, and considers how discrimination based on family relationships and workplace accommodation of family responsibilities have been addressed in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and South Africa.
The Discussion Paper, which extends beyond 150 pages, includes both scholarly analysis and practical figures and tables, such as a chart of case summaries and figures that compare approaches to the ground taken in various Canadian jurisdictions.
Like other projects of the BCLI, the work of the BC Family Status Legal Research Project was informed by an advisory committee. The members of the committee are:
- Lauren Bates, Staff Lawyer, Law Commission of Ontario
- Tom Beasley, Senior Associate Counsel, Coutts Pulver LLP
- Gillian Calder, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria
- Devyn Cousineau, Staff Lawyer, Community Legal Assistance Society
- Nitya Iyer, Partner, Lovett Westmacott, and Pay Equity Commissioner, Northwest Territories
- Frances Kelly, Barrister and Solicitor, Community Legal Assistance Society — Disability Law Program
- Susan O'Donnell, Executive Director, BC Human Rights Coalition
Family Status Discrimination in BC: A Discussion Paper will be published in June 2102. See the project webpage for more information on the BC Family Status Legal Research Project or to download the discussion paper.
1An Act to revise and extend Protection of Human Rights in Ontario, SO 1981, c 53.
2 2004 BCCA 260
3Johnstone v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 F.C. 36.
Krista James is the National Director, Canadian Centre for Elder Law at the British Columbia Law Institute in Vancouver.
The CBA Equality Committee — Where do we go from here?
By Mark L. Berlin
Editor’s note: Adapted from an article in the OBA’s Briefly Speaking.
Next year marks the 17th anniversary of the establishment of the CBA’s Equality Committee. Despite its work over the past decades, some still ask whether there continues to be a need for such a group. I recently asked this exact question of members of the Ontario Bar Association (OBA). The CBA is far more subtle and in its preface to the recent CBA report, A Path Forward for Equality, Kerri Froc and Rebecca Bromwich, both CBA Staff Lawyers note:
“It has been over 15 years since the CBA Gender Equality, Diversity and Equality Task Force submitted its final report, Touchstone for Change: Equality, Diversity and Accountability. A significant milestone within the legal community, this report has often been cited as the springboard upon which organizations and individuals within the legal community have focused their attention and drawn useful ideas and references for policies, programs and actions to advance non-discrimination and equity within law societies, law schools, the judiciary, departments of justice, legal associations and law firms.”
It has only been a few months since the mandate of the Equality Committee was formalized. The mandate of the national Equality Committee is as follows:
The Equality Committee is dedicated to achieving equality in the legal profession, in particular on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, age or disability. The Committee works with CBA groups and other organizations to:
- promote awareness of equality in the legal profession;
- develop resources to assist the legal profession in eliminating discrimination and achieving equality and diversity;
- encourage appropriate accommodation where possible;
- monitor the status of equality and diversity in the legal profession; and
- monitor implementation of CBA policies related to equality in the profession.
Froc and Bromwich go on to acknowledge that while there is greater representation by equality seeking groups in law schools there are still issues of retention, and law firms are still struggling with how to measure their efforts and how to translate policy into law firm culture and results.
Nationally, the Equality Committee has Branches in each jurisdiction. For example, in Ontario, the mandate of the local provincial Branch is as follows: The Equality Committee (recently re-named from “Equal Opportunity Committee”) was set up to:
“Examine and make recommendations regarding the impact of race, ethnicity, religion or disability on OBA’s by-laws, electoral processes, policies, submissions and activities. Further responsibilities include identifying the incidence of inequality of opportunity in the legal profession in Ontario based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or disability and recommend methods to eliminate said inequalities. Finally, the committee was charged to examine and make recommendations on the ability of the legal institutions in Ontario to serve the needs of historically disadvantaged equity seeking groups, such as those identified by race, ethnicity, religion, disability or sexual orientation.”
Well, ask yourselves: does the CBA membership reflect all lawyers in Canada? When you attend Council meetings and look around the room, are all equality–seeking groups represented in numbers that match their numbers within the profession? When you look at the CBA Executive and Board of Directors, does it look like the diversity of the community it represents? When you look at the major law firms, do the partners somehow all look the same? Are executive members of government justice departments homogeneous as a group or widely diverse? Are diversity members equity partners in numbers that reflect their membership? I think the answers to these questions are pretty clear.
This is not to say that there is overt discrimination in the legal profession in Canada. That is so 1960-70s. On the contrary, there have been recent and real efforts to look at our association and the profession at large and ask difficult questions. So while our colleagues at the CBA produced an equity and diversity guide and resource manual a couple of years ago, It’s all about Respect, following on the heels of the above mentioned Touchstones report, the 2000 Racial Equality in the Canadian Legal Profession working group and report, and established SOGIC, Aboriginal, Women Lawyers, French–Speaking Lawyers Forums and Conferences which brought forward numerous resolutions, have there been vast improvements for lawyers from the equality and diversity community? Hmmmmm. Let’s be honest. I think not.
We need to constantly ask ourselves a number of other questions. What are the systemic and unconscious barriers that prevent a full participatory membership from existing and being reflected in the upper echelons of decision making in the profession? How can we reach out and make colleagues feel valued and welcomed within our organization? What barriers exist for hiring, retention or promotion with the workplace? What accessibility barriers exist within our legal institutions? What particular and unique obstacles exist at law school, bar admissions and articling? Are legislative proposals sensitive and reflective of the needs of a diverse population?
The CBA Equality Committee and its provincial and territorial associated groups vigilantly address these and other issues. By way of example is the recent RARE finds project, launching the Trailblazers group and planning for an Equality summit, examining an “equality leader designation” initiative and monitoring cases. In Ontario by way of illustration, they inaugurated an awareness raising diversity panel at their recent Council meeting. They have established a disability sub-committee to conduct a survey of existing reports to confirm what has been done by whom and what gaps still exist. They will soon be canvassing all members to learn what our members with disabilities have experienced and whether adequate accommodation was made in particular circumstances. They are seeking greater involvement in the OBA court accessibility sub-committee. There is a Diversity Program at the OBA, whereby equity seeking legal associations can affiliate with the OBA, which provides administrative support for them. Over half a dozen groups, such as the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, the Indigenous Bar Association and the Hispanic Lawyers’ Association are taking advantage of this program. These are just a few of the initiatives of both the CBA and OBA Equality Committees. As I noted, there are other jurisdictions with which I am less familiar that are also engaged in various initiatives.
For those of us who are concerned about the fair and equitable treatment of all members of our profession we sometimes worry that putting a lens on issues of concern inevitably evokes feelings of “diversity fatigue” amongst some of our colleagues. This is a new term I recently heard — and one that scares me.
Look again at the questions posed above. Until we can honestly answer them to the benefit of our members and no longer need to ask such questions, the National Equality Committee and its provincial and territorial counter-parts will continue to contribute meaningfully to the resolution of inequality on behalf of all lawyers and law students in Canada.
Mark L Berlin is the Director General — Rule of Law and Governance at the Institute On Governance in Ottawa.
Remembering December 6 — 22 years since the massacre at École Polytechnique
Editor's note: This item is reprinted with the permission of the CBA Nova Scotia Branch.
December 6 is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. 2011 marked 22 years since the École Polytechnique massacre. This tragic event must not be forgotten.
On December 6, 1989, 14 women were murdered by a man who proclaimed that he was "fighting feminism." We remember this day to honour those 14 women who were forced to sacrifice their lives, and to remember that much still needs to be done to achieve gender equality.
Women everywhere continue to live in fear: fear of assault, fear of violence, fear of being victimized. Headlines in Nova Scotia alone during the last few weeks, detailing daily accounts of murder and violence against women, have brought home the reality that women are still at risk of being victimized by hate and this instills a fear that is palpable. Although this fear should not be denied or ignored, we must continue to stand together against gender-based violence and in memory of the sacrifices made by women everywhere, including those who were murdered at the École Polytechnique massacre.
On behalf of the Gender Equity Committee, we encourage you to recognize the significance of the sacrifices of the 14 women at the École Polytechnique, whose names are listed below. These women, and all women who have sacrificed in the name of equality, must be remembered and honoured.
For the legal profession, December 6 has particular relevance. These 14 women were murdered, in part, because they were women working to make a place for themselves in a male-dominated profession. As lawyers, we are all privileged to work in a profession founded upon equality and justice. That privilege obligates all of us to ensure that both our profession and the justice system are open and accessible to all people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or physical ability. We must continue to work towards eradication of the fear, and replace it with empowerment and equality.
Please take a moment on December 6 to reflect on the women of influence in your lives and in this profession, the sacrifices they have made, and the impact they have had on your lives and your practice.
On behalf of the Gender Equity Committee,
Heidi Schedler and Candee McCarthy
Co-Chairs
Victims of the massacre at École Polytechnique:
Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Barbara Daigneault (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student
Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student
Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique's finance department
Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student
Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student
Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student
Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student
Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student
Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student
For further information: National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women - Status of Women Canada
National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women – December 6
By Elaine Cumming
It has been 22 years since Marc Lepine unleashed his hatred against women at l'École Polytechnique de Montréal. I think there are many of us who remember watching the horror of that day unfold on the evening news and, for some of us, a seed of fear was planted. Although I have always considered myself to be a feminist, the misogynistic violence of that day changed me and my perspective on violence against women.
So often this violence is confined to the private sphere — the home, the family. This was different. These were women who had the intelligence, determination and courage to enter a field of study once reserved for men. These were young women who may not have even been aware of the trail that they were blazing. They certainly would never have anticipated the wrath they had attracted.
I remember the day it happened and the impact it had on me, but its long-term effects were not really clear to me until I started law school. The importance of being a woman in a professional program once the exclusive domain for men of privilege was not lost on me. I was proud to learn that more than half the graduating class would be women. However, that seed of fear that had been planted years earlier had grown.
When December 6 rolled around, the Dalhousie Association of Women in the Law, of which I was a member, planned a vigil and other events. We had the support of many students, although most from a rather disinterested perspective. We had a few students who were overtly hostile about our efforts to remember this important event. The fact that many of the students who were openly derisive were women was tremendously disappointing.
Young women need to recognize that many of the things we make our own decisions about — education, employment, marriage and parenthood — are available to us only because of the women who came before us. We also need to recognize that there are some members of Canadian society who would like to take those choices away from us. As lawyers, we have the knowledge and the power to make every effort to ensure that the rights of women are protected, and we should not be afraid in doing so.
We mark December 6 each year in recognition and support of the women killed in Montréal and for all women who continue to be affected by violence. This should not be viewed as a cause reserved for a special interest group; rather, violence against women impacts all of us. Our mothers, sisters, daughters, aunts …
Don’t be silent. Talk about it. Remember.
Elaine Cumming works at the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society in Halifax.
CPD: On leave? Busy? You'll want to read this!
Are you...
Busy in your practice?
Busy in your life?
On leave?
Finding it challenging to schedule time for your PD credits?
Requirements for PD credits don’t have to pose a barrier to your professional success.
You may be eligible for a CPD exemption while on leave:
More thought has gone in to ensuring PD policies accommodate equality and diversity than you may know. Lawyers on leave may qualify for an exemption from the CPD requirements. Provincial and territorial law societies have included accommodations for maternity and parental leave as well as disability in their PD credit requirement policies. To find out if you are eligible or to receive additional information on how to obtain an exemption, please consult your local law society.
You don't have to attend in-person conferences to fulfill your CPD requirements**:
Enjoy the convenience of online PD programming from the comfort of your own home or office. The CBA offers accessible, affordable and accredited programming on a variety of topics that are relevant to lawyers across Canada. Our live online programs are accredited in all MCPD jurisdictions.
Recorded online programs offer the same advantages as live online programming with the added benefit of enabling you to watch your preferred programs at any time.
CPD credits may also be available for the following activities:
• teaching
• writing
• mentoring
• law-related studies
• study groups
• online interactive self-study
**Please consult your law society for your jurisdiction’s rules regarding accredited programs and activities.
|
