|
Race / Ethnicity / Religion is part of the Equality program. You can find more information about it on its main program page. |
|
|
Race / Ethnicity / Religion
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on April 10, 2012
At Thursday’s meeting of the Toronto Police Services Board, CCLA’s Equality Program Director Noa Mendelsohn Aviv addressed the Board over the documented practice of racial profiling by the police. CCLA’s submissions expressed concern not just with “carding” – the recording of names and identities of black male youth – but also with unwarranted stops by police of these individuals. Stating that such stops are unacceptable and unconstitutional, CCLA called on the police to deal with this matter urgently and proactively. CCLA supported the recommendation of the Police Services Board Chair to commence an independent investigation into this practice, while also insisting that the police remain responsible to deal with this matter without delay, and must prohibit unwarranted stops and questioning, demanding and recording of identities, intimidation and searches. CCLA was encouraged by further motions put forward by Board Vice Chair Michael Thompson, which included a requirement that the police Chief report regularly to the Board on this matter, including with respect to steps taken to address issues that arise, and a requirement that individuals who are stopped must receive a copy of information recorded about them, which should include reasons for the stop. Though cautiously encouraged by the Board’s proposed motions to address this practice, CCLA will wait to see how motions passed will be implemented. CCLA also remains concerned that the practice of unwarranted stops has not yet been prohibited. We will continue to monitor and advocate around these and related issues. For CCLA’s Statement and Recommendations to the Board, click here. Minutes of the Toronto Police Services Board meeting (setting out the motions passed) are not yet available, but will be posted here once they become available.
By Abby Deshman on March 22, 2012
On March 22nd, the Supreme Court released their decision in R. v. Ladue (read the decision here), a case about sentencing Aboriginal offenders (read CCLA’s factum here). Over a decade ago, the Supreme Court recognized that racism against Aboriginal people within Canada had “translated into systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system,” with the result that Aboriginal Canadians were “drastic[ally] overrepresent[ed] … within both the Canadian prison population and the criminal justice system.” Parliament had also recognized this “crisis in the Canadian criminal justice system” and responded by enacting a specific sentencing provision in the Criminal Code which placed a particular emphasis on the circumstances of aboriginal offenders and alternatives to incarceration. In Ladue the Supreme Court strongly affirmed that when judges sentence Aboriginal offenders they must take into account “(1) the unique systemic and background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts; and (2) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage or connection.” The Supreme Court specifically addressed the concern that this would create a race-based discount on sentencing, stating that the courts’ duty was not to artificially reduce incarceration rates, but rather to come to a truly fit and proper sentence for each individual that appeared before them. In the case of Aboriginal offenders, a just sentence cannot ignore the history of colonialism, systemic discrimination, and its impact on this community and individual offenders. Similar considerations should also be taken into account with non-Aboriginal offenders, when they apply. As the Manitoba Court of Appeal has said in R. v. Vermette, “to achieve true equality sometimes different people must be treated differently.”
By Cara Zwibel on January 17, 2012
The issue of public school boards distributing Gideon Bibles is once again before some Ontario school boards. CCLA has previously expressed concerns about this practice and wrote about the issue to the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) on a number of occasions. The WRDSB subsequently rescinded their policy on the distribution of non-instructional religious materials and ceased the practice of allowing the Gideons to distribute Bibles to students. You can read more about the CCLA’s previous work on this issue here. CCLA has recently learned that the Bluewater District School Board is currently considering policy options around their ongoing practice of allowing Bible distribution. In addition, it appears that the practice may also be occurring in schools in the Grand Erie District School Board. CCLA has written to both of these boards raising concerns about this practice and policies that may allow for the proselytization of religion to public school students. Read CCLA’s letter to the Bluewater District School Board here. Read CCLA’s letter to the Grand Erie District School Board here.
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on September 22, 2011
The CCLA has written to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry (MNDMF) regarding a potential threat to traditional aboriginal burial sites and sacred lands that has resulted from a proposed mining and development project. In its letter, CCLA reminded the Minister of certain implications of Canada’s constitutional protection for freedom of religion, including the right to define the scope and manner of expression of spirituality, subject to reasonable limits. CCLA’s letter also sets out certain rights protected at international law, including the right of Indigenous peoples to maintain and protect manifestations of their cultures, including historical sites; and the right to access in privacy religious and cultural sites. To read a copy of CCLA’s letter, click here. Update (March 8, 2012): Click here to read a letter from the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to Premier Dalton McGuinty supporting KI’s concerns.
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on June 10, 2011
The Supreme Court of Canada issued today its decision in the Mavi case, concerning the need for procedural fairness in the federal immigration sponsorship regime. Specifically, this case had asked whether the government had to act with procedural fairness when demanding payment from sponsoring family members whose relatives had received government benefits. The CCLA welcomes the Court’s conclusion that the government does indeed have a duty to act fairly in these circumstances. Such a duty is necessary, according to CCLA, to allow the government to have discretion in considering people’s circumstances, unexpected changes in their lives, and what will make for good public policy. A similar already duty exists in relation to many other programs that require people to pay back sums to the government, and CCLA had argued that it would be discriminatory if it were not applied in the case of the immigration sponsorship regime. Thus in this case of people sponsoring their children or parents or spouse to come to Canada, there has to be room to accommodate, for example, a person who lost their job, or become disabled through an accident. The Court’s decision does raise some concerns, however, in that it does not require the government to provide reasons as to why it will or will not accommodate individuals. The exercise of governmental discretion should, in CCLA’s view, occur in a transparent and accountable manner.
By Noa Mendelsohn Aviv on January 10, 2011
A reference on proposed amendments to Saskatchewan’s Marriage Act which would have allowed provincially appointed marriage commissioners to refuse to perform civil marriages where to do so would conflict with their religious beliefs. CCLA intervened to argue that the amendments would unjustly violate the right to equality of same-sex couples and thereby risk creating a system of unequal access to basic government services.
By Cara Zwibel on December 15, 2010
CCLA is deeply concerned about a resolution passed by the Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) allowing Gideons International to distribute the Gideon Bible to grade 5 students. Schools will be sending home consent forms to all students in the fifth grade and providing the Gideon Bible to those students whose parents consent. CCLA expressed concerns about this practice in 2009 and has written to the school board on two occasions again this year to articulate the particular problems raised by the policy and its implementation. CCLA has also been contacted by a number of members of the Waterloo community who have expressed their concerns as well. The matter has been widely covered in the media and a petition has been started by local community members urging the Board to reconsider its decision.
By Cara Zwibel on June 8, 2010
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association will present arguments before the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding whether a Muslim woman, who is a complainant in a sexual assault case, must remove her niqab in order to testify. A niqab is a garment, often worn for religious reasons, that covers the facial features below the eyes. Although the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right which the CCLA supports vigorously, it does not usually encompass permitting a defendant to prescribe how a witness may be dressed, seated or made comfortable in the context of trial proceedings. Scientific evidence indicates that facial cues are unreliable predictors of credibility – particularly in the context of cultural differences. CCLA will argue that, absent objective threats to fair trial rights, individuals should not be required to choose between following their religious beliefs, and accessing justice.
By Cara Zwibel on May 14, 2010
CCLA has submitted a brief to the Quebec Legislative Assembly expressing serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill 94, proposed legislation that would require all those requesting a wide range of public services in Quebec to show their faces. As outlined in previous CCLA statements, the organization believes that the Bill is unnecessary, dangerously ambiguous, and would unjustifiably violate freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to equality. CCLA’s brief expands on these points, and also outlines the dangerous precedent set by the bill, which is based on the assumption that the State may attach conditions to its duty to serve citizens, and establishes the principle that citizens have a duty to identify themselves to obtain the services of the State. Typically, it is the totalitarian state that randomly requires citizens to identify themselves, demands justification for their every-day activities, and places unnecessary, discriminatory conditions on the receipt of government services. Democratic countries, including Canada, should reject such measures.
By Cara Zwibel on March 31, 2010
Bill 94, tabled last week in Québec City, is entitled An Act to establish guidelines governing accommodation requests within the Administration and certain institutions. Its central provision, section 6, reads as follows: The practice whereby a personnel member of the Administration or an institution and a person to whom services are being provided by the Administration or the institution show their face during the delivery of services is a general practice. If an accommodation involves an adaptation of that practice and reasons of security, communication or identification warrant it, the accommodation must be denied. The Bill is applicable to all government sectors and to many public institutions, among them, daycare centres, public school boards and health facilities. In essence, the government is presuming that interacting with a woman wearing the niqab who works for the government or is seeking a governmental service is an undue burden. In our view, this general prohibition is vague, will lead to abuse and further marginalization, constitutes a denial of freedom of expression and religion, and is unnecessary. Read more… |
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Canadian Civil Liberties Association - All Rights Reserved |
||