Topics 4 and 5 Flashcards
1
Q
Formal vs substantive equality
A
- formal equality is an unsatisfying equality in which people in similar situations are treated the same.
- substantial equality considers the peoples’ particular situations and how they are affected by certain laws
- important to understanding the womens rights movement and how it progressed
- women’s suffrage movement: given formal equality when some are given the right to vote.
- they continue to fight for substantive because they recognize that this equality is different for women of color and of different class
2
Q
M.V.H 1999
A
- two women separate and are denied spousal support under family law act
- they take it court on the basis of discrimination with regards to sexual orientation
- they win and the law is struck down
- significant because they win against heteronormativity
- homo is seen as legitimate and worth of legal protection
- opens the door for discussion on marriage equality
3
Q
Liberal Feminism
A
- the liberal state can help achieve gender equality
- it helps in understanding the tactic used in women’s suffrage act. They wanted liberal democracies to perfect the state by giving them equality.
- similar to liberal pluralist theory- the liberal state can create equal opportunity to give the same opportunity to rise to the top
4
Q
Section 52
A
- constitution is the supreme law of Canada and any law that contradicts it must be struck down
- this makes charter supreme to all other legislation
- gives a lot of power to the courts who are given the duty to interpret whether laws are for or against the charter and if they should be struck down
- is justice being given too much power compared to legislation
5
Q
Purposive approach
A
- The provisions guaranting rights and freedoms will be interpreted broadly.
- look more at the values of charter and the outcomes of legislation
- They will look past the words of the law, its values therefore it can be better tailored to the context of the case
- even if a law has good intentions if outcomes are bad it will still be struck down
- trying to give people maximum protection under the law
- they looking towards more substantive equality by looking out the outcomes and how laws affect people.
6
Q
Notwithstanding clause
A
- section 33 states that the gov’t can violate the charter on a temporary basis
- this has only been used in two cases: Quebec language laws and the back to work legislation in Saskatchewan
- connects to criticism of judicial review: a way to override courts if they become dictatorial
- it undermines the power of the charter
7
Q
“We are Family” 1989
A
- Karen Andrews takes to court Ontario’s insurance policy that excluding same-sex couples
- can’t pass a section 15 challenge
- they say it is not discrimination it is “different rights for different people”
- formal equality, Aristole’s claim that like must be treated alike people in the same situation are treated the same
- heteronomativity- same-sex and hetero were different
8
Q
Mossop v. Canada
A
- Brian Mossop takes to court his employer refusing him bereavement leave
- goes he is discriminating based on family statues, has no right to say who is family and who is not
- it is defeated
- also a victory because this case challenges and opens up the definition of family from just heterosexual norms.
9
Q
Egan. V. Canada
A
- Denied security pension taken to court on basis of discrimination
- gets passed a section 15 challenge
- doesn’t get passed a section 1 challenge, judges say that it is because they are a relative new interest group it would be to expensive to grant them this protection
- it is a defeat but a victory because it passes the section 15 challenge and adds to sexual orientation as a basis of discrimination
10
Q
Vriend v. Alberta
A
- He is fired from a Christian College because he is gay
- takes it to court and it passes a section 15 and 1 challenge
- victory because now sexual orientation discrimination will no longer pass on the charter
11
Q
LGBT battle timeline
A
- Karen Andrews “We are family”
- Mossip V. Canada
- Egan V Canada
- Vriend v. Alberta
- M. V. H 1999
12
Q
Heteronormativity
A
- heterosexuality is a natural and normal relationship, and that sexual and marital relationships were reserved for this sort of relationship
- this view is used promote heterosexuality over homosexuality
- significant to understanding what the LGBTQ community was fighting against.
- they were fighting for the same rights to prove they were equal to hetero couples
13
Q
Moral Regulation
A
- law normalizes and legitimizes some behaviour while marginalizing others
- significant to understanding the power the state has over its citizens to determine good and bad behaviour
- Explains how law can become involved in the morality of society
- Female Refuges Act, moral concern and threat of VD motivates the state regulate women’s behaviour.
14
Q
obscenity law
A
- prohibits undue exploitation of sex
- this law is based on an accepted moral code
- this comes into play in the case of Butler
- gay and lesbian porn film store is raided and they are fined
- he says it is discrimination against gay and lesbian people, it is not undue exploitation of sex but celebration of homosexuality
- shows how moral based legislation can target certain groups of people
- power of judicial review, they had to decide what is decent or not
15
Q
Critical race theory
A
- idea that certain legal codes are biased to white people and exclude non-white people. This exclusion has bad effects on people of colour well legal decisions are made
- Finding Dawn- her family is disappointed at the effort of law enforcement
- Dawn’s brother notes that had she been white the investigation would have gone further
- how the law is applied differently to different groups of people
