|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Bias Of The Law Commission Of Canada Marriage Takes
A Beating
The Law Reform Commission (LRC) was established in 1971 to serve as
a permanent body to review federal laws and to make recommendations
for their improvement, modernization and reform (See Reality,
Winter 1990, p.6). In the past, the LRC has recommended abortion on
demand for up to 22 weeks gestation, fetal experimentation, the elimination
of the crime of incest between brother and sister, the reduction of
the age of consent for sexual intercourse from 18 to 14 years of age,
the decriminalization of prostitution and keeping a bawdy house, and
the elimination of the crime of bestiality. The Law Reform Commission
was disbanded by the Mulroney government.
But in 1993, the Chretien government reinstated it and renamed it
the Law Commission of Canada (LCC). The LCC claims its "mission"
is to "engage Canadians in the renewal of law to ensure it is
relevant, responsive, effective, equally accessible to all, and just."
The LCC is anything but "just". In fact, it is a biased
unrepresentative organization used to promote the agenda of special
interest organizations. Ironically, its recommendations are frequently
quoted by Supreme Court judges, as though it was a fair and reasonable
agency, which it is not (See Book Review The Charter Revolution
and the Court Party, p15).
The Commission's latest project involves a Discussion Paper entitled
"Recognizing and Supporting Close Personal Relationships
Between Adults". The project includes an activist website
at www.lcc.gc.ca,
a comment board and a webcast panel discussion. Three of the five
authors of this paper are well-known lesbians. There can be no doubt
that the purpose of this paper is to "assist" the Supreme
Court when it renders decisions for the same-sex legal challenges
in the next few years.
Fundamental Bias
The Commission demonstrated its fundamental bias on the marriage issue
when its president, Nathalie Des Rosiers, took part in an "information
session" at the National Press Club in Ottawa on January 30 with
the Reverend Brent Hawkes. The Reverend Hawkes, of Toronto's predominantly
gay and lesbian Metropolitan Community Church, is closely linked with
the Ottawa-based homosexual lobby group EGALE. The Reverend Hawkes
engaged in a high profile publicity stunt in January when he conducted
a form of "marriage" between two same-sex couples.
The LCC bias is also evident on its website. It ignores statistical
evidence that legal marriage is the most safe, secure and healthy
place for men, women and children. According to Statistics Canada,
family break-up leads to increased poverty. Four times the number
of common-law couples break up within ten years when compared with
married couples. Common-law couples are also four times more likely
to engage in domestic violence than married couples. Sociologist Judith
Wallerstein's 25-year follow-up of the children of divorced parents
shows the long-lasting negative effects of divorce, which she claims
are due to the deprivation of a "couple template" of mother
and father.
Law Commission Webcast
The LCC held a webcast on January 31, consisting of a panel discussion
with e-mail participation. The webcast moderator was newscaster Francine
Pelletier. Members of the panel were Nathalie Des Rosiers, President
of the Law Commission of Canada, Neil Brooks of Osgoode Hall Law School,
Nicole LaViolette of the University of Ottawa's Law Faculty, and Monica
Townson, a well known feminist economist. The panel discussed whether
the conjugal relationship is to remain as the basis of Canada's social
policies. Their bias against traditional marriage was obvious.
There was some concern expressed that determining eligibility for
benefits and subsidies based on conjugality will result in "probing"
and "intrusion" into personal lives, now that new legislation
has put common-law and same-sex couples on the same level as marriage.
Pelletier suggested that governments will eventually "stick their
noses in people's bedrooms." Des Rosiers noted "...there
was a famous Prime Minister who said the state has no business in
the bedrooms of the nation but unfortunately it looks like it's in
it."
Despite these concerns, marriage took a real beating from the panel.
Francine Pelletier referred to the "prejudice in favour of marriage,
conjugality." "Is the government willing to... let go of
its bias towards marriage in the old form?" "Why is it that
we've always privileged this conjugal model? ...the old idea of conjugal
relationship, interdependent sexual relationship, should be set aside...
the government has to go back and re-think the whole question of conjugality
and many of the systems, fiscal or other, that we derived from that....
all programs have to kind of be re-thought". [from translation
on webcast video]
Neil Brooks wants to put fostering, caring relationships first and
"just set aside these notions of being married or conjugal relationships
or whatever" in dealing with subsidies or benefits. To view the
unpaid work of mothering and care for elderly family members, as a
private obligation is "profoundly wrong;" it is, rather,
a "social responsibility that we all have." He stated that
"conjugal is totally irrelevant... we have to structure our tax
and transfer systems to encourage both parents to assume the obligation
of care-giving.
f you're not careful you will build in programs that simply reinforce
the traditional role of women as care-givers and I think that's profoundly
wrong!" When asked how he would do that, he stated: "I would
just make men stay at home!" Other panelists responded with uproarious
laughter.
Nicole LaViolette concurred that conjugality is "no longer a
model that serves us appropriately." To engineer "a truly
egalitarian society" she revealed that "we've discovered
that every once in a while you have to use programs in order to try
to favor choices... That, in some cases, may be more favorable to
women than the choices they would otherwise have made." Again,
"there may be objectives we want to promote in terms of close
intimate relationships or close personal relationships, everything
has to be reviewed...."
Monica Townson reminded the panel that many benefits were designed
to protect women who were particularly vulnerable. Yet she agreed
that "ultimately we have to move beyond basing programs and law
on conjugal relationships and look at it differently", we need
a "comprehensive review". In reference to benefits for the
elderly and the handicapped she warned "that we don't structure
it in such a way that we reinforce the idea that people who are dependent
or disabled or elderly must be taken care of by family members."
She concluded: "we have to revisit this whole idea of basing
programs and tax systems on conjugal relationships. That seems to
be something in the past that might have been valid but we've moved
way beyond that now."
Don't Demolish Marriage
REAL Women contributed to the discussion in the form of a commentary
posted on the Comment Board. It suggested that expanding benefits
to interdependent relationships could be accomplished without demolishing
the legal and social status of traditional marriage in our society.
Not surprisingly, the LCC never included this win/win situation in
its law reform, undoubtedly because the entire purpose of the project
is to demolish traditional marriage. We emphasized the important role
of marriage in the procreation and nurturing of the next generation
and that this role should be encouraged in social policy, not ignored.
We quoted Statistics Canada on the benefits of the intact family in
terms of health, stability and economic security, for all members
of society, especially children.
In a letter to the editor published in the Ottawa Citizen
on February 11, 2001, REAL Women President Jeannine Lebel made several
important points. She noted the bias against marriage in the LCC Discussion
Paper, and that three of the five authors were known lesbians with
an obvious conflict of interest. The LCC ignored the findings of Statistics
Canada and overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
that concluded in the 1995 Nesbitt and Egan case, that it is not discriminatory
to provide special benefits to heterosexual couples because of their
unique contribution to society.
This was also the position taken by the European Court of Human Rights
and the European Commission on Human Rights. The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which all recognize that
the legal status of marriage and spousal relationships apply exclusively
to heterosexual couples.
Jeannine concluded: "It is unacceptable that the government is
funding this biased Commission, whose conclusions are not rooted in
legal principle but are only driven by personal bias and the perspective
of a special-interest group."
Please contact the LCC with your comments on the unique and necessary
status of marriage and the need to base social policy on this basic
unit of society.
E-mail comments to the LCC at::
getinvolved@lcc.gc.ca
Or write to:
Law Commission of Canada
473 Albert St. 11th Floor
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8
Tel 613-946-8980
Fax 613-946-8988
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
