The secret of success

"It is easy for high-achievers in demanding professions to find fault with themselves and seek confirmation of their  self-worth from others and in their accomplishments. Follow that route, however, and you'll be easily derailed by setbacks. Real success, and the foundation for strong leadership is rooted in a deep-seated sense of personal power.
That's why the path to real power starts from the inside.
Beverley Spencer, Editor National

Hate speech is discrimination

LEAF intervening at SCC in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan

Prohibiting Religious Hate Speech is Constitutional.
Hate speech is more than mere expression. It is a form of discrimination.
 
October 11, 2011, Toronto - On Wednesday October 12, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear Whatcott v. Saskatchewan. LEAF is intervening in the appeal. The case involves a constitutional challenge to s.14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, which prohibits the promotion of hatred against protected and vulnerable groups.
 
"Hate speech is a deeply harmful form of discrimination which not only harms the targeted group, it harms all of society" explains LEAF co-counsel Jo-Ann Kolmes. "Limits on hate speech against targeted groups, like gays and lesbians in this case, play a critical role in promoting an inclusive and tolerant Canadian society that respects equality of all our citizens."

Whatcott distributed homophobic leaflets to homes in Regina and Saskatoon. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal and the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that these flyers constituted hate speech. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that although the flyers may be "demeaning," "crude" and "harsh," they did not cross the line into expression which vilifies and degrades gays and lesbians and exposes them to hatred. The Supreme Court of Canada will consider whether the flyers constitute hate expression and whether the provision of the Code is constitutional.

"Twenty years ago, LEAF participated in the important and successful effort to establish that limitations to hate speech are constitutionally justified, culminating in the Supreme Court's decisions in the Keegstra and Taylor cases", says LEAF co-counsel and professor of law Kathleen Mahoney. "These limitations are now under attack, only this time, instead of Jews, the target of the hatred is gays and lesbians. LEAF argues that speech rights raised by Whatcott must be subject to the same equality principles Courts have applied to racial hatred. The Court cannot ignore the grievous injuries homophobic hate speech inflicts on sexual minorities."

Mahoney points out that society has long recognized that expression must be regulated in many ways, most of them invisible and now taken for granted.
 
"Journalists are prevented on a daily basis from reporting what could be relevant information by libel and contempt of court laws. Government servants are bound by oaths of lifelong secrecy. The Broadcasting Act sets limits on the content of programming on television and radio. The centuries-old law of defamation clearly limits harmful speech. Human rights statutes prohibit sexual and racial harassment, which often take the form of speech." Mahoney says the regulation of hate speech must be understood in this context, "Hate speech is much more than mere expression. In and of itself it is a form of discrimination. Sometimes it goes beyond discrimination to result in violence. The continuum between expression, discrimination and violence is undeniable."
 
LEAF's factum documents the unique ways in which women are harmed by hate speech.
 
"The portrayal of Aboriginal women as dispensable, run-away prostitutes or 'squaws' has been connected to violence against Aboriginal women, including disappearances and murders," says LEAF Legal Director Joanna Birenbaum. "Hate expression targeted at lesbians, women with disabilities, Muslim and racialized women, depicts and degrades them in specifically gendered, often-sexualized ways. Expressions of hate directed at women must be treated extremely seriously under human rights legislation such as the Saskatchewan statute, especially since women are excluded from the Criminal Code protections."

LEAF has a long history of equality analysis and advocacy with respect to the importance of statutory limitations on freedom of expression. LEAF intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada cases of R. v. Keegstra and Taylor v. The Canadian Human Rights Commission in 1990. In December 2009, LEAF made submissions to government on the importance of s.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that also prohibits hate speech (which can be found on our website at
http://leaf.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Submission_to_JUST_Committee2009.pdf)
 
LEAF's factum in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan is available at http://leaf.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Factum_LEAF_Whatcott_Finale_Signed-copy.pdf


-30-
For more information, please contact:

Joanna Birenbaum
 (LEAF Legal Director)
 (Cell) 647-500-3005 - (Office) 416-595-7170 ext. 223 - (E-mail) j.birenbaum@leaf.ca
 
Kathleen Mahoney
 (Counsel)
(Cell) 403-837-1141
 
Jo-Ann Kolmes
(Counsel)
(Cell) 780-993-0839


LEAF is a national, non profit organization committed to confront all forms of discrimination through legal action, public education, and law reform to achieve equality for women and girls under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For more information, please visit us at http://www.leaf.ca/

Family Violence a Serious Mental Health Problem

Domestic violence is seen as a women's issue and as such not given the importance it deserves just like everything else that concerns women.
In this article, the leaders of Topeka Kansas, short of cash, is ready to ditch family violence "misdemeanours" as it is called. This could be just the tip of the iceberg for women.  When the going tough whose concerns are ditched?  You guessed it women. Be prepared to fight for women's rights anywhere you are in the globe.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/topeka-legalize-domestic-violence?

Multiculturalism and Diversity in Canada

C

ANADIAN APPROACHES TO DIVERSITY NATURALLY REFLECT CANADIAN REALITIES. THE

starting point is that Canada is one of the most multicultural countries in the

world. Among OECD countries, it is virtually unique in the coexistence of three

dimensions of difference: the historic divide between English- and French-speaking

communities, which represents the central reality of Canadian political life; the

presence across the country of indigenous peoples, many of whom assert traditional

claims to self-governance; and large immigrant communities, with over 18

percent of the people living in Canada having been born outside the country.

Moreover, in contrast to some host countries whose immigrants come predominantly

from one part of the world, creating a relatively homogeneous “Other,”

Keith Banting, Thomas J. Courchene

and F. Leslie Seidle

648

Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and

Shared Citizenship in Canada

26 Conclusion 9/18/07 9:50 AM Page 648

immigrants to Canada have come from many different parts of the world, creating

a “diverse diversity” composed of a wide range of ethnicities, races and religions.

Canadian approaches to diversity are also shaped by the country’s larger

geopolitical position and the traditional nation-building strategies on which it has

relied since 1867. Immigration was a key ingredient in Canada’s first National

Policy, which settled the West and secured Canada’s territory from “sea to shining

sea.” From the very beginning, therefore, immigration has been central to our

existence — geographically, economically and politically. Immigrants are us. In

addition, geography insulates the country from some of the pressures of the twenty-

first century. Buffered on three of its borders by oceans and on its southern

border by the United States, itself an immigrant destination, Canada has not had

to cope with high levels of illegal immigration. We are, as a result, less prone to

concerns that immigration policy is “out of control,” a fear that has contributed

to the politics of backlash in some other countries. The buffering effects are not

absolute, to be sure. Anxieties about a “clash of civilizations” and about Muslim

extremism have washed over our borders, contributing to a heightened security

agenda and tensions with the United States over border management. However,

Canada has been fortunate: Islamic radicalism is a small element in the Muslim

community here, and Canadian foreign policy, especially the decision not to join

the Iraq war, has eased the heightened tensions existing in some countries.

These multiple forms of diversity and historic geopolitical strategies have

informed the ways in which Canadians think about both recognition and integration.

Recognition of Diversity

The recognition and accommodation of diversity have been central features of

Canadian political history, and contemporary debates over multiculturalism are simply

the continuation of an ongoing Canadian conversation. This tradition is grounded

in historic commitments to French Canada and to the Aboriginal peoples, who

both see themselves — and are increasingly seen by others — as distinct societies or

“nations” within the Canadian state. These accommodations framed the cultural context

in which Canada responded to new forms of diversity resulting from immigration

during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Indeed, as Stuart Soroka and his colleagues

observe in their chapter, the “thinner” sense of Canadian culture resulting

from accommodations among the historic communities “may actually have benefits

in a multicultural era, making it easier for new Canadians to feel comfortable here.”... Read more

Conclusion: Diversity, Belonging

andhttp://www.irpp.org/books/archive/AOTS3/conclusion.pdf

Interesting link

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights

Interesting information about immigrant women

http://criaw-icref.ca/ImmigrantandRefugeeWomen