Conference Report — UNPAC (Mb)
UN Platform for Action Committee (Manitoba)

“Women’s Rights are Human Rights” Forum

PROCEEDINGS OF A HUMAN RIGHTS FORUM

Crossways in Common
222 Furby Street
Winnipeg, Manitoba

March 26 & 27, 1999
Funding provided by Status of Women Canada

UN Platform for Action Committee UNPAC (MB)

UNPAC (MB) is an association of Manitoba women dedicated to the objectives of the Platform For Action as ratified by Canada at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, 1995.

The UN Platform for Action document identified 12 critical action areas for governments to advance equality, development and peace:

“Poverty, Education, Health, Violence, Armed Conflict, Economic Participation, Human Rights, Environment, Mass Media , Power Sharing, National and International Machineries, The Girl Child”.

UNPAC (MB) Contact Address:

UNPAC (MB)
P.O. Box 36, Stn. L.,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3H 0Z4
Phone: (204) 987-4614
E-mail to: unpac@unpac.ca

Copies of this report can be obtained free of charge by sending your request to the above address. Donations to cover the cost of postage are welcome.

Back to Top of Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Status of Women Canada, Women’s Program, for proving the funding for this event.

We especially want to thank the many volunteers who served on our committee and those who assisted at the conference to help make this event possible, as well as the YM/YWCA Women’s Resource Centre and the Young United Church for providing space for our meetings.

Our sincerest thanks are also due to the guests, panelists and presenters for their great contribution to the success of this forum.

PROCEEDINGS

Friday, March 26, Evening

6:00 PM Registration
6:45 PM Welcome
Esmé Stewart, Chair, UNPAC (MB)
 6:50 PM Greeting from MB Government & Introduction of keynote speaker
Hon. Vic Toews, Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Recap (in French) — Giséle Saurette Roch, Co-Chair, UNPAC (MB)

7:00 PM Keynote Address
 “Applying Women’s International Human Rights in Canada”
 Madame Claire L’Heureux-Dubé
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada

Questions/Comments from Audience
7:40 PM NFB Gail Singer Video “You Can’t Beat A Woman”
Introduced by Simmin Hadidi, Coordinator,
Manitoba Coalition for Violence Prevention

9:15 PM Closing Remarks
Giséle Saurette Roch, Global Committee Co-Chair, UNPAC (MB)

9:20-10:00 PM Refreshments and Networking

Saturday, March 27

Human Rights Tribunal
Chaired by Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dubé
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada

8:30 AM Registration
9:00 AM Introductory Remarks (by Muriel Smith)
9:10 AM Global Perspective Presentations
9:40 AM Comments from Panelists and Guests
10:10 AM Nutrition Break
10:30 AM Local Perspective Presentations
11:15 AM Comments from Panelists and Guests
12:00 PM Lunch
1:00 PM Workshops
2:00 PM Plenary
3:00-4:30 PM UNPAC (MB) Annual General Meeting (AGM), including Election of Officers

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL PANELISTS

Tribunal Chair: Hon. Madame Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada

Through her numerous publications and many years of serving in different capacities and key positions, she has contributed enormously to the shaping and administration of law and justice at the local, national and international levels. She was also a member of the delegation of Status of Women Canada to China (October, 1981), a member of the National Council of the Canadian Human Rights Foundation (1980-1982, 1982-1984).

Honourable L’Heureux-Dubé is a recipient of “The Canadian Award” presented by the Canadian Hadassah-WIZO (for an outstanding Canadian Advocate of Equality and Champion of Human Rights) and establishment of “the Honourable Madame Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé Scholarship” at the Canadian Hadassah-WIZO Hadassim Children and Youth Village in Israel (1996). She is also a recipient of a medallion for “Prix de la Justice” (1997) presented by the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice (Institut canadien d’administration de la justice) and numerous special awards in Civil and Labour Law.

Tribunal Panel:

Ertrice Eddy:

A consultant with over twenty years experience, locally, nationally and internationally in several areas, such as professional practice, academia, administration, employment equity, workplace enhancement and community work. She continues to work on behalf of various groups including women, racial/cultural groups, physically challenged individuals and victims of torture, and provides educational workshops to facilitate better employer/employee understanding and working relationships.

Beryl Mae Jones:

Currently an Associate Professor in the Education Department at the University of Winnipeg, she teaches courses in cross cultural, human rights and citizenship education. She has participated in international dialogues related to Women’s issues in Nairobi, London, Beijing and in the Caribbean. She is the founding president of Immigrant Women’s Association of Manitoba (IWAM), and actively participates in both the Manitoba and Canada Citizenship Councils. For her tireless contributions, Dr. Jones received the 1998 Citation for Citizenship Award from Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

David Matas:

A private practice lawyer specializing in refugee immigration and human rights. He has lectured at several universities in the areas of international law, constitutional law and civil liberties. His participation at the executive level in numerous local, national and international organizations has won him many prestigious awards including the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties in 1996. He has shared his knowledge through several publications on the topics of immigration law, human rights, and war criminals.

Estella Muyinda:

Has been a Legal Analyst with the Court Challenges Program since June 1998. She received her Bachelor of Laws and a Diploma in Legal Practice in Uganda. Upon her arrival in Canada, she attended the University of Manitoba, Faculty of Law, where she qualified to practice law in Canada. She was admitted to the Manitoba Bar and Northwest Territories Bar. Ms. Muyinda is currently a non-Bencher member of the Equality Panel, Law Society of Manitoba, and a board member of the Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), Manitoba.

Janis Nickel:

Has been part of of the activity at the International Center delivering critical services to immigrants and refugees. For the past four years, she has worked as a paralegal with refugee claimants, advocating on theri behalf with various agencies. She possesses a Bachelor of Theology and is near the completion of a Bachelor of International Relations.

Dianna Scarth:

Has served as the Executive Director of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission for the last two and one half years. In her work, she educates employers as well as individuals about human rights issues. She possesses varied expertise from careers in law and social work. Her educational background includes Bachelor of Arts, Master of Social Work and Bachelor of Laws degrees.

INTRODUCTION:
WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS

The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1948), the Conventions on Political and Civil Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966 — ratified in 1976), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1981), the Vienna Declaration on Human Rights (1993) and the Beijing Platform for Action (1995) — “Seeing the World Through Women’s Eyes” — provide the basis in international law and policy for the promotion of women’s rights as human rights.

The UN Platform for Action Committee (UNPAC), Manitoba, organized a Human Rights Forum on the topic of Women’s Rights are Human Rights in Winnipeg at Crossways in Common on March 26- 27, 1999. Participants had an opportunity to listen to examples of human rights abuses internationally and locally. Panelists consisting of experts who have a demonstrated competence, knowledge and commitment to Human Rights participated in the Human Rights Tribunal.

The event began with an evening feature on Friday at 6:45PM, March 26 with a keynote address by the Honourable Madam Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and the showing of the NFB Gail Singer Video “You Can’t Beat A Woman”. This set the tone for the actual Human Rights Tribunal which started promptly on Saturday morning at 9:00 AM.

A number of presentations representing global and local perspectives of human rights abuses were made. Each of the Tribunal panelists had an opportunity to respond at the end of each group’s presentations, once, summarizing the global concerns and, a second time, addressing the local issues.

The forum was attended by 150 people on Friday evening and 150 people on Saturday. What follows in this report are the highlights of the presentations and the recommendations which were developed at the Forum.

Back to Top of Page

Applying Women’s International Human Rights in Canada

Summary of Keynote Address
by Honourable Claire L’Heureux-Dube,
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada

March 26, 1999

The presentation addresses the relationship between “global” and “local” perspectives of human rights. It also discusses how concepts of international women’s rights can be and have been applied within Canada, and in particular, in the interpretation of Canadian law. The highlights of the presentation are included below.

In recent months, people all over the world have celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 1948, as the world emerged from the horror of the Second World War, the members of the United Nations proclaimed their commitment to ensuring that wherever they were, all over the world, all human beings had inalienable rights, and their belief that respect for these rights would ensure peace, justice, and freedom for all members of the global community.

The rights set out in the Universal Declaration are nothing short of the conditions necessary for full participation in society and these include:

The Universal Declaration is a blueprint that shows how to achieve respect for the human person. The declaration and other conventions are built on revulsion at past horrors; human rights standards are yardsticks by which to measure progress at all levels from the individual to the global. Even in the developed world, there are many reminders of failure to achieve these standards: crises of homelessness, unemployment, poverty, unequal and unsafe workplaces, hate crimes, torture, war genocide, sexual and racial harassment and discrimination, inequality between developed and developing worlds, are just some of the problems that international human rights law implores all citizens to confront. Human rights activists have been jailed and tortured for their beliefs, yet despite their fears they have continued to hold peaceful demonstrations. So, there is much to be done.

It was the realization that the 1948 Universal Declaration needed more detail and mechanisms for enforcement that caused the international community to agree to more detailed conventions on specific issues. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes more detailed many of the basic rights contained in the Universal Declaration, and contains a mechanism to make complaints to the U.N. Human Rights Committee. Article 23 recognizes the importance of the family, stresses that marriage requires the free and full consent of the intending spouses, and requires the convention’s signatories to take steps to ensure the equality of rights and responsibilities of the spouses. Perhaps most significant is article 25, which guarantees that all persons are equal before the law, and guarantees “equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” This principle guaranteeing equality without discrimination is critical to ensuring that women’s rights are respected.

In 1981, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women(CEDAW) was ratified at the UN. It was signed by and became part of the law of Canada in 1980. This obliged Canada to give women constitutional equality (Article 2.a), to pass laws to prohibit/eliminate discrimination, to protect women, to modify discriminatory customs and practices, etc., and to oblige Canada to report regularly on progress made.

Though Canadian courts have not had to deal with gross and systemic abuses of human rights, and Canadian women have enjoyed equal legal capacity with men since before international human rights instruments came into effect, we are working hard to ensure that in all areas of Canadian law, discrimination that violates women’s human rights is eradicated. This shows how, in “local” courts, Canadians are applying the principles contained in global human rights law, although we have not always referred directly to these international instruments.

The adoption of the Charter in 1982 implemented this obligation through two provisions. Section 15 of the Charter guarantees equality without discrimination to all persons, while section 28 guarantees the equal enjoyment of Charter rights to men and women. Juries and governments are responsible for carrying out those principles, through review, interpretation and application to real life cases.

In 1985, when the Charter came into effect, the conception of equality was articulated — the effect of the law should be to give substantive equality to all members of a group. Putting into place the concepts of equality and non-discrimination that underlie CEDAW and section 15 of the Charter requires an approach that focuses on the effects of a law on those affected by a distinction. The notion of formal equality (equal treatment) was rejected. Unanimous judgments under Supreme Court Chief Justice Dixon in 1989 and upheld in late judgements respect the same principle of substantive equality (equality of result), not just formal equality (equality of treatment). “Chief Justice Dixon, who was from Winnipeg, was the greatest feminist we have had. He was well trained by Justice Bertha Wilson”.

The CEDAW convention [article 2 (f)] not only calls upon jurists to think in terms of women’s human rights and anti-discrimination principles when laws are challenged as violations of constitutional equality guarantees. It also presents us with the challenge of modifying all existing laws so they are consistent with these ideas. Though it does not speak of jurists directly, this provision requires the modification of existing laws, and the interpretation and application of those laws by the judiciary, in a manner that corresponds with the principles of human rights and substantive equality. These words impose upon judges, lawyers, and others a heavy task. They tell us that women’s equality and human rights, as well as those of all people, must always be taken into account, always considered, and always evaluated in the work we do in public life. The analysis in all areas of law must consider how our decisions and approaches accord with the principles and values of dignity and equality.

One of the most important areas in which to carry out this task is criminal law. Indeed, the importance of criminal law is signaled in article 2(g) of CEDAW itself, which obliges the parties to it to “repeal all national penal provisions which constitute discrimination against women”. This also constitutes a call to jurists to apply penal laws with respect for the principles of substantive equality, and modify legal doctrines which do not respect those principles. Mme Justice Bertha Wilson in a 1990 decision relating to the time allowed a woman who had suffered child sexual abuse before she reported the situation rules that the different life experiences (needs, realities, perspectives) of women, and the realities of the “battered women’s syndrome”, should mean that the time allowed should be extended to start from the time the woman became aware rather than from the events themselves; she also ruled that under Article 5 of CEDAW, cultural practices which discriminated against women should be modified. Dealing appropriately with questions of violence against women makes the criminal justice system a participant in the process of modifying patterns of discrimination against women.

Issues which implicate the values of respect for women’s equality continually arise in the context of sexual assault. Speaking the language of human rights, on this issue especially, requires constant attention to the needs, realities, and perspectives of women in particular. Though sexual assault engages questions of the right of the accused to a fair trial and to put forward a full defence, it must also be remembered that the courts’ treatment of this issue also engages the rights of all women to freedom from violence and from infringement of their personal dignity.

In family law, CEDAW’s Article 16 called for the elimination of discrimination against women; this means that men and women should benefit in substantially equal ways from marriage and family relations; the Manitoba case of Moge vs. Moge established the principles regarding spousal support on divorce by recognizing their different roles in marriage, their different earning patterns and the usual role of women as primary caregivers.

The need for substantive equality within the family is not an issue only in family law. Our Court’s decision in K.M. v. H.M. shows that even issues like the interpretation of limitation periods in tort law may engage questions of respect for women’s rights. In that case, the plaintiff’s father sexually abused her when she was between the ages of 8 and 16, but she did not commence an action for damages until she was 28, beyond the time limit of the relevant limitation period. However, in interpreting the limitations legislation, the Court considered social science evidence on the impact of incest on its survivors and noted that because of the nature of such abuse, incest survivors often repress memories about what occurred, are unaware of the injuries it has caused them, or blame themselves for the events. Our Court held that the limitation period legislation should be interpreted, in the context of incest cases, so that the time period does not begin to run until the plaintiff becomes aware of the abuse, the responsibility of the defendant for that abuse, and the fact that the abuse caused psychological or physical injuries she later experienced. In so doing, the Court recognized the important role that therapy often plays in coming to this understanding. Again, coming to a decision that would contribute to ending inequality within the family, in this case the discrimination and violation of incest, required examining and understanding women’s lives.

Courts’ decisions in tort law, as shown by our Court’s decision in Norberg v. Wynrib, may even implicate the right to freedom from discrimination in health care. Article 12(1) states that “States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health services, including those related to family planning”.

In that case, our Court dealt with the claim of a drug-dependent woman whose doctor had given her narcotics in exchange for sex. Our Court recognized the imbalance and abuse of power in this relationship, and held that the doctor was responsible for aggravated and punitive damages. He knew of the plaintiff’s dependency on drugs, could have taken steps to treat her for that dependency, but instead chose to take advantage of it for purposes of his own gratification. Recognizing that she did not truly consent to the sexual activity was an affirmation of the fact that the doctor had infringed her human right to substantive equality.

The importance of substantive equality between men and women in employment is recognized in article 11 of CEDAW. In Canada, prevention of discrimination against women in the field of employment is done primarily through federal and provincial human rights codes, which ban discrimination by private citizens. In Janzen v. Platy Enterprises, the Supreme Court had to determine whether sexual harassment in the workplace could be considered discrimination on the basis of sex. Ms. Janzen, who worked in a restaurant, made a complaint to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission that she was sexually harassed by the cook at the restaurant. She left her job voluntarily after the owner of the restaurant refused to do anything about her treatment.

Chief Justice Dickson held that sexual harassment does constitute discrimination on the basis of sex, since it is generally directed at women, and denies them equality of opportunity in the workplace. When women are singled out for sexual harassment, our Court held, this is because of their gender, and giving a remedy for this treatment is part of preventing discrimination in employment. The primary responsibility of jurists is to promote and protect the rights of all, particularly the less powerful; e.g. diverse groups of women — minorities, women with disabilities, women of colour — must have their rights guaranteed by courts which recognize the differences in their life experiences.

In education, much can be done. For example, last year Justice L’Heureux-Dube spent her summer holidays in Pakistan working through CIDA with Pakistanis for Judicial Education. That is one way Canadian knowledge and experience can be exported. While there, she met an NGO that has been working on education for 3 year olds in Human Rights Education. In Canada, we can do much in Day Cares to educate new mothers and the children. We should REVOLT and DEMAND such Human Rights Education for all our High Schools. Local groups can reach out to immigrants and support them in reporting violence. The media could be used — films are very powerful tools — NGOs could hire people, seek grants to create such audiovisual aids.

In conclusion, these examples highlight just some of the ways in which the international human rights of women have been recognized and applied within Canadian law. They show how, in applying principles of substantive equality and considering the perspectives and needs of women, our Court has helped ensure, through interpreting our Charter and our laws, Canada’s respect for the rights contained in the international documents which it and other countries around the world have adhered to.

One might ask why the rights of women require special attention, or why a Supreme Court Judge should speak about how our Court’s decisions have implemented the principles in an international convention dedicated to the eradication of discrimination against women. The answer to this is that serving justice, which is the goal of every jurist and especially every judge, requires attention to the needs, realities, and experiences of many different people in Canadian society. The perspectives of many groups in Canadian society —- women, minorities, the disabled, and people of colour, for example —- have in the past, often been ignored by our legal system. Serving the goal of justice sometimes requires revising or rethinking legal principles —- not to promote the rights of any groups at the expense of others, but to ensure that our legal system provides justice and equal protection of the law for all Canadians. The preamble to the Universal Declaration begins by saying “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. These words emphasize the world’s recognition of the importance of dignity and equality to the goal of serving and promoting justice.

Our country, too, has made equality without discrimination one of the fundamental principles of our legal system, enshrined in our constitution. In doing so, it has reflected the consensus of our citizens, of our government and of people around the world that law should never protect only the interests of some, or ignore the needs of those without power or influence. Making changes in the law to reflect this consensus and respect these principles is about promoting fairness and ensuring justice for all —- the mandate of every judge. Torture and rape should be declared war crimes and crimes against humanity. Women’s Rights are everybody’s business, so include men in the work. “Human Rights for All”.

Back to Top of Page

Tribunal Presentations

Chaired by Honourable Madame L’Heureux-Dubé
Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada

March 27, 1999
Introduction by Muriel Smith

The tribunal started with opening remarks by Muriel Smith, who thanked the Honourable Madame Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, for the dynamic and exciting keynote presentation the previous evening, Friday, March 26. Ms. Smith acknowledged that it was gratifying to hear a person on the Supreme Court of Canada who shares the most progressive ideas of equality that organizations like LEAF and others have been presenting to the Canadian public ever since the Charter was passed.

In introducing the tribunal, Ms. Smith explained that the idea for this Human Rights forum grew out of the international forum in 1993 in Vienna, where a group of non-governmental women, through very skilful lobbying, managed to get recognized for the first time ever at the international level, the principle that “Women’s Rights are Human Rights”. Ms. Smith compared this to the “Persons” case in Canada, where women had to be recognized legally officially as persons, even though, those who were living at that time, no doubt knew they were persons, but it wasn’t reflected in the legal principles of the day. This was another landmark in Vienna, “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” and since then, women have had a special rapporteur and other machinery to give reality to that principle.

We heard at this tribunal that was held in Vienna, from ordinary women in a way, ordinary extraordinary women from around the world, told in their own way, their story of how they believed their human rights have been abused. The whole point of it all was to show that most human rights abuses of women occur in the private sphere of their lives and until that point, that was never recognized as a place where government should ever intervene. From that time on, the jurisprudence has been evolving in Canada and elsewhere and we felt it was time to have a parallel human rights forum here in Winnipeg. However, we didn’t just go with the idea of having local human rights abuses because part of UNPAC’s mission is to show the linkage between local and global issues, and to build our capacity to be global citizens. That’s why we have structured our forum today to have five presenters. They all live in Manitoba, but two of them will be speaking about conditions that they knew in their home country. Catherine Hakim will tell us about Sudan and Rosy Yee will tell us about conditions of women in Burma. We will then have comments from several of our six esteemed panelists.

Back to Top of Page

Presentations on Global Human Rights Issues

“Human Rights Abuses of Women in Sudan: A Focus on War and Slavery” by Catherine Hakim

Sudan, situated in the Horn of Africa, is currently the site of war, slavery and human rights abuse. There are approximately 30 million people in the area, 56 ethnic groups, 300 tribes and more than 500 dialects. The indigenous (first nation’s) people are of black African origin. Arab settlement in Sudan can be traced back to the 7th Century. With Arab Settlement, there has been a gradual replacement of local cultural practices, languages, religions and culture with Arab Culture, Arabic language and Islam. Arabic and English are the two official languages, Arabic being the commonest spoken all over the country. Arab interest in Sudan was mainly in what was referred to as “Human Resources” and “Material Resources” — “Human Resources” being the term used to describe slaves, while “Material Resources” refers to the country’s mineral and other natural resources.

From 1821 — 1881, the country was ruled by the Turkish. The Mahdist Revolution (Mahdiya) took over from the Turkish between 1881- 1885. From 1899-1955 the country was once again colonized by the British. Both the Turkish and English colonial rules took place through and jointly with Egypt. The Turkish rule encouraged the spread of Islam, Arabic language and Arab Culture. It also institutionalized slavery and slave trade. Slaves consisting of African Sudanese young men and women were taken for military purposes, farm and domestic work as well as sold to other parts of the Arab world. This was continued during the Mahdist rule.

With the English Rule in 1899-1955, slave trade was banned and spread of Islam further South was prevented. The British used a separatist development approach between North and South of Sudan. Education was far more accessible in the North, while limited formal education was introduced in South Sudan, along with Western European culture. With the gaining of Independence in 1956, the south of Sudan was annexed to the North, an act which south Sudanese to this day consider a “sell out” for the North to continue to marginalize and exploit the people of the south. A continuation of oppression of the people of the south culminated in a civil war, which has continued over the four decades since independence, with only ten years of relative tranquility between 1973-1983. From that period until now, there has been civil war; slavery and torture have resumed, with very little development of political institutions.

Back to Top of Page

The war in Sudan is one of the longest in the world. A combination of the prolonged civil war and so-called natural disasters have resulted in deaths and human rights abuses of tragic proportions. It is estimated that 2 million people have been killed through this war. Another 5 million have been displaced from their homes and live in camps inside Sudan or as refugees in the neighbouring countries. Starvation and disease characterize the daily lives of a majority of the people of south Sudan. It is estimated that well over 2 million people are presently starving to death. Women, children and the elderly are left to fend for themselves as the younger generation of men get killed in the war.

The people displaced within the country live in a nightmare, under conditions that can be best described as “a hell on earth”. South Sudanese in camps in the Northern part of the country have been rounded up at gun point by Government forces, largely composed of Northerners, and dumped in the desert without any food, water, shelter or medicine. They are denied access to education and basic life amenities. Most of these people are women and children. For lack of better survival strategies, women make their living through the demeaning work of brewing alcoholic beverages and prostitution. At the same time, women have to suffer the indignity of being rounded up, brutally arrested and lashed, as a punishment for these activities, mandated by the country’s judicial system which is governed by the Islamic Sharia Laws.

Once forced out of the country, refugee life is not any easier for women. As refugees, women live below the poverty line, under inhuman living conditions with no shelter, no sanitation, little food, unsafe water, poor education, lack of support systems, discrimination, isolation and marginalization. Families have got separated. Many adolescents and young children escape and stay by themselves if they have not got adopted by distant relatives. Many decide to go back to the war front in the absence of a better solution.

Yet the war has still continued to ravage the people, with continuous air-bombardments of hospitals and other facilities in South Sudan, the looting and destruction of property, multiple rape of women and all forms of abuses and violation of human rights perpetuated by the Sudanese government soldiers and militia. Relief aid to South Sudan has been deliberately obstructed by the Sudanese government. All of these are actions of genocide, meant to extinguish the African population of South Sudan. There is a deliberate intention to replace the African Christian and Animist people of South Sudan.

Back to Top of Page

Slavery and Slave Trade is another major issue of concern. It is estimated that since the intensification of slavery by the military and Islamic government, a total of 150,000 children have been taken into slavery. Many children have died in the process of trying to escape from slavery. The story of the lost children of the world in 1991 is worth remembering where over three hundred children (unaccompanied minors) walked for three months from Bahr el Ghazal Region of Sudan into Ethiopia and back to Sudan and then finally into Kenya, seeking protection. Many of these children died of starvation or were eaten up by wild animals. The survivors were taken into camps at the Kenyan border where living conditions were below living standards. They finally integrated or disintegrated into the refugee community and who knows their fate?

Efforts of CSI where an estimated 6000 children have been redeemed or bought back into freedom are coming under attack by many including the United Nations (UNICEF). But which is better, to leave the women and children in bondage or buy them to freedom? Slavery and slave trade was abolished and almost forgotten in the 19th century. Yet here we are, entering the new millennium, with the cruel practice of selling and buying human beings still going on in Sudan!

The global community were most often involved in supporting oil exploration and exploitation, thereby helping the oppressive regime rather than helping the oppressed people. The oil companies have tried to negotiate with the Sudanese Government. Awareness has grown in the UK, US and Canada that protecting Human rights must take precedence over respect for the sovereignty of the state. As yet there is no effective action, as was the case in Rwanda, Burma and Kosovo, even in terms of international media coverage, although the total death toll of the three countries put together is less than the total number of lives claimed by the war in Sudan.

Honourable members of the tribunal panel, the following is a summary of the issues to be considered in this human rights tribunal:

Back to Top of Page

In view of the above, the following requests/recommendations are placed to this tribunal to consider:

  1. The need for a multinational force to create a safe havens to protect the people who are escaping the war.
  2. The need to re-emphasize the recommendation by Canadian Churches to impose a no-fly zone in South Sudan to avoid air bombardment.
  3. Relief aid to be targeted to the people affected — air-drops are not sufficient.
  4. Re-enforcement of economic sanctions and air-embargo against Sudan.
  5. Relocation/resettlement of displaced people who have been damped in Sudanese deserts.
  6. Resettlement of people in Refugee Camps, particularly women most of whom have to fend for themselves.
  7. Plans for Oil company to negotiate peace with Sudanese government will not work.
  8. Governments to take more interest to add their voice and their hand to strengthen the campaign by Canadian churches.
  9. High profile visits by world leaders to Sudan is encouraged.
  10. Learning from the horrors of Rwanda, Bosnia, Burma and Kosovo, and what the international community has done, the global community should seriously consider similar action. The Sudanese government should be held responsible for their genocidal activities and systematic violation of human rights.
  11. The International community to pressure warring factions to reach a political settlement of the situation once and for all.
  12. In the words of one respected Sudanese dignitary in a statement to the UN Commission of Human Rights, we respect the international code on sovereignty of states, however, the sovereignty of states must be made conditional upon respect for standards of human rights as expressed in the international instruments.
Back to Top of Page

“Empowering Women of Burma”
Rosy Yee

Rosy and her family took asylum in Canada in May 1997. Women and children are the first to suffer when there is political strife. The Burmese women and children have suffered silently for half a century since 1948 when independence was secured and oppression started. A majority of Burmese refugees escaped to Thailand and Malaysia. Most of these were not recognized as refugees until September 1998 and therefore not looked after by UNHCR and UN Border Relief Organization. Instead they are construed as illegal immigrants and subjected to persecution and repatriation. Currently, there are more than 1 million refugees in Thailand, many of them involved in the flourishing sex industry in the country.

Responsibility for refugees in camps along the Burmese/Thai border lies with the International NGOs and church organization, which are in good books with the Thai government. There is no Canadian NGO involved there. It is expected that these NGOs would work hand-in-hand with the Canadian government, since the Canadian government has not contributed anything towards restoration of democracy and human rights in Burma. Realizing the situation, a small group of like-minded women in Winnipeg started the “Empowering Women of Burma” since 1997 and visited and helped the affected women and children at the Thai/Burma borders. There are millions of refugees all over the world and the number is on the increase, as stated in the reports of the UNHCR. An estimated 500,000 to one million Burmese ethnic minorities are internally displaced. Why should this happen? The only answer to this is because of militarisation, because of man-made war. Women did not start the war, nor do they want to be refugees.

Where is the responsible global action against a totalitarian regime which abuses the human rights of its people such as the Burmese regime? The Burmese regime uses its own people, including women and children as mine sweepers. Children are required to fight as soldiers against their own ethnic groups. Women are forced to work as porters all day and serve as sex slaves for the soldiers at night.

The horrible truth is that Human Rights are not protected in Burma. Where are the rights to life and liberty? There is no freedom of association. The Democratic Opposition Party has been persecuted, its members arrested and jailed. Aung San Sui Kyi, herself elected to office but then imprisoned by the military junta, appealed to the world but they turned a deaf ear.

Trafficking of women is another big concern, which is not only tragic but inhuman. This is fed by the revived tourism industry. Women are so poor that prostitution is sometimes their only option for survival of themselves and their families. It has been estimated that half the population may depend for their food on prostitution, reminiscent of the “comfort women” used by the Japanese army during the war. There are millions of prostitutes everywhere. Are those women really happy? They are not. These women are used, they are sold and forced. Prostitution is illegal in Burma and is not accepted by society but has been encouraged by the military regime in Burma. There has been a rapid escalation of HIV infection. There was none before 1982 but since 1995, the numbers are estimated to be over 400,000. Young girls are often the victims: they are exploited for a while, then killed.

Another issue is that within the family, the girl child is less favoured than the boy, so abortions of girl fetuses and sale of girl babies are rampant. Many minority women flee to the refugee camps on the border, or as with the Karen minority inside Burma, fall victim to being displayed as in a human zoo as “traditional women”. Young women are still induced to wear a stack of “neck rings” to produce the elongated but very painful neck considered valuable to the tourist trade.

On paper, women are supposed to have gained their rights. The International community in Vienna in 1993 declared that “women’s rights are human rights”, but there are many impediments to women’s development because many governments and menfolk themselves still don’t sign the agreements or implement the rights even if they do sign. As Mrs. Hilary Clinton put it during her visit to Thailand, no country can move forward into the 21st millennium if half of its population, women, is left on the margin. Women’s voices must be heard!

Rosy then showed a video showing the suppression of the democratic uprising, slave labour on the railway to the north inside Burma, and life in the border camps. Her NGO works to teach women in the camps basic sewing and weaving, nursery school skills, and typing. This improves their lives in the camps and offers them some options skills other than prostitution should they escape.

Back to Top of Page

Comments by Panelists on Global Presentations

Janice Nichol:

Listening to women’s stories suggests a universal pattern — until political, tribal and nationalistic disputes are resolved, women remain subjugated without human rights. Janice had herself visited the Thai/Burmese border refugee camps and is aware of some of what Rosy has talked about. She saw young girls serving as prostitutes in 6’x10’ cubicles lining a large quonset hut, surrounded by barbed wire. This was inside Thailand and it was explained that there were many Burmese men working inside Thailand and that the Thai prostitutes refused to service them, so they had to bring in Burmese women. Janice left the audience with the question: “Who crosses a barbed wire fence to have sex with children?” It is not one culture doing it to another; it is men doing it to women! So, whether it is global or local, the pattern is the same.

David Matas:

Suggests a number of proposals for the forum to decide on whether to take action on in the workshops and plenary:

  1. Aung San Sui Kyi’s husband has died three years of trying to get into Burma in order to visit his wife — he knew he was dying — and the Burmese government had consistently refused his admission for the purpose of family reunification. This forum is encouraged to express it’s shock and dismay that he was not able to visit his wife before he died. The United Nations has a special rapporteur on Burma, but this rapporteur has also been denied access to Burma by the Burmese government. This forum is also encouraged to call on the Burmese government to allow the UN special rapporteur to get into Burma so he can do his report in the most effective way possible.
  2. For the Sudan, there is no special rapporteur — it is recommended that one be created. There are some general mechanisms to deal with the issues we have heard about through the UN about Sudan and Burma, but they are not as effective as they could be. We heard in both countries there is a large number of internally displaced persons (IDP). However, there is no mechanism in the UN to deal with IDPs. There is a special representative of the Secretary General for the IDPs, his name is Francis Deng, but he doesn’t deal with specific situations. He is basically there to advise the Secretary General in a more general way about how to deal with IDPs. The special representative needs to evolve into a mechanism that deals with the IDPs.
  3. There is a special rapporteur on violence against women, who is very active. But, like all the special representatives and rapporteurs at the UN, they are underfinanced, they mostly volunteer and have little staff support. David Matas is on the Board of Directors of the International Centre Human Rights and Democratic Development, which has its headquarters in Montreal. Through that centre, funding is provided for the special rapporteur on violence against women and she is provided with some information. Anybody who has information about the situation in Sudan or Burma or elsewhere, is encouraged to provide that information to special rapporteurs.
  4. The UNHCR is already doing a great deal. However, we should be calling on UNHCR to do more to oppose the forced repatriation of Burmese refugees from Thailand to Burma.
  5. Human rights violations are pervasive, they do not emanate only from government but from all sectors of society. In the context where they occur, human rights education would be useful and important to all sectors through every means possible in Sudan, Burma and wherever human rights violation is widespread.
  6. We have heard about the problems of corporations dealing with governments, providing them with money that they are going to use for providing arms and human rights violations. We need to see the codes of corporate conduct that are developed, that are adopted or that are applied or that are enforced and we should be training the corporations in Canada or elsewhere that are dealing with these governments to adopt and apply these codes of cooperate conduct.
  7. There are problems with refugees, not only abroad but in coming to Canada. We have a refugee claim system abroad that discriminates against women because it requires, in order to come to Canada as a refugee, not only that you be persecuted and show you have been persecuted but also that you like to be successfully established in Canada. The economic criterion has an adverse impact on women — it impacts disproportionately against women and therefore it should not be there.
  8. If somebody comes to Canada and makes a refugee claim as a woman, there are a couple of different claims. A joint claim with your husband will be heard with your husband. If you are subject to some of sexual abuse in the past, either from your husband or from somebody else and you don’t want your husband to know about it, you have to apply for surveillance, which allerts your husband to the problem that you are trying to hide from him. A claim should initially be severed with the application for joinder as an option rather than initially be joined with an application for severance as an option.
  9. A lot of the claims are claims of sexual violence, which are inevitably perpetrated in private, there are no witnesses and in order for them to be received, they have to be believed. We face many refugee claims decision makers who receive these claims with scepticism. We need guidelines on credibility. There is guidelines on gender claims but there is no guidelines on credibility and that’s a problem.
  10. Finally, we should increase the universal jurisdictions for revisions to the criminal code. Many of the crimes that are committed abroad, we can’t do much about when they are committed abroad, but we certainly can do something about the criminals when they come here. But the general presumption in our criminal code is that crimes apply only as committed in Canada. Some of these presumptions need to be removed so that when people who have committed these crimes come to Canada, even if they are not Canadian citizens and even if the crimes were committed outside Canada, they should be prosecutable.

Comment by Justice L’Heureux-Dube:

Thanking David Matas for his contribution, Justice L’Heureux-Dube commented by asking “how come we are not revolting from what they do to women all over the world?” Only few examples have been cited, but this goes on and on. The video last night (“You Can’t Beat A Woman”) was very dramatic. Each and everyone of us should think what we could do in our small way in order to be comforting or in order to see what kind of mechanisms more than there is right now and faster, that we could devise. It is not only for judges, lawyers and specialists. It is for each of us that we have to be aware of these problems and try in our own mind and in the activities that we pursue, to do something — it’s revolting!

Back to Top of Page

Presentations on Local Human Rights Issues

Myrna Gamblin (First Nations)

The way we have been taught is that Women’s Rights are indeed Human Rights. This is based on the knowledge that we are all children of the creator, dependent on the body of our mother earth. We are all equally loved although each of us is different.

One of our most fundamental rights is the right to speak. The voice is one of the most powerful of medicines that we are blessed with. Like any medicine, it can be used to harm or to heal. The right to speak was recognized and put to effect in the reserve by ensuring that media facilities were available to any person who wanted to speak on any subject that affected the people. However, this right was lost on May 1, 1997 when a Reserve members tried to stage their concerns about Bill C-56, the Northern Flood Implementation Agreement for Manitoba. The Northern Flood Agreement was signed in 1977 between Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and five Cree Bands including Norway House.

During May 1995, Reserve leadership were negotiating a “Master Implementation Agreement” to replace the Norther Flood Agreement Treaty. The leadership were concerned about the lack of Band meetings, the traditional discussion forums, to discuss and examine the new agreement. Reserve members ended up by being detained by the RCMP inside the radio station for several hours. Manitoba Hydro cut off the electricity to the station and the members were arrested and taken to jail, where they were fingerprinted and only released after signing charges of theft of telecommunications. Court hearings did not take place to this day. Since then Norway House Cree nations has not gained access to the media or to general Band meetings.

The new agreement became available after June 1997, full of technical and legal language and none of it was translated into Cree. Although Reserve members were asked to indicate whether they approved, but members supporting the agreement were offered $1000 each. Because of the extreme poverty on the reserve, this was a powerful inducement to support the proposal. According to the Indian Act, there would have to be a double majority approval (a majority both of those eligible to vote and of those actually voting). The first vote narrowly failed so an additional vote was held with the $1000 per supporter offer still in place. Although a majority voted to approve the agreement, 186 members objected to the second vote and were given several punishments as a result.

There are a number of concerns. The first is that the Northern Flood Agreement (NFA) is a Treaty. the Master Implementation Agreement has termination clauses which effectively terminate the NFA Treaty rights. Canada and other parties claim that they don’t know if this is a treaty or not. We believe it is self-evident. The NFA alters Treaty 5 and gives Manitoba Hydro rights to reserve lands, and it can not do so if it is not a Treaty. In spite of the outstanding questions and the process by which the approval was obtained, Canada has gone ahead and signed the Master Implementation Agreement without Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro. Furthermore, Canada is currently legislating the Agreement in the form of Bill C56 part A.

The process surrounding the Master Implementation Agreement, together with the proposed legislation affects everyone, not just the Aboriginal people of Norway House. As Canadians, everybody is entitled to enjoy the fundamental rights in the free and democratic society as recognized in the Supreme law of Canada, the Constitution. In interpreting these rights, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that there is no hierarchy constitutional rights. The protection of these rights have resulted in tests that have to be met in order to effect these constitutional rights. As a result, Canadians enjoy constitutional protection against proposed legislation that can affect these rights. For instance, equality rights in section 15 of the Charter are protected by a test spelled out in section 1 of the Charter. The right for Canadians to change the constitution and create a separate Quebec has another test that was recently recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. Aboriginal rights of section 35 (1) of the constitution are protected by a test spelled out in Supreme Court of Canada case for spiral. Like section 15 of the Charter, there is nothing in the wording of section 35 (1) of the constitution that says these rights can be extinguished.

Bill C56 is intended to legislate the Master Implementation Agreement. This negotiated agreement has clear and plain provisions indicating the intention of Canada to extinguish the Aboriginal Treaty rights of the NFA treaty. The NFA treaty has been defined as a treaty by the Manitoba Justice and several other legal opinions and is protected by section 35 (1) of the constitution, requiring a spiral test to be followed. The government of Canada has consistently stated Bill 56 by way of contract is simply implementing NFA treaty, remaining silent on the need to follow a spiral test.

Bill C56 is intended to compensate reserves for the effects of high level flooding, the creation of an artificial river, fluctuations of water levels, destruction of fish stocks and beaches from dams, and shore erosion as a result of dams needed for northern hydro development. Manitoba Hydro should make full assessments of hydro development and the proposed agreement on the environment, human rights and democracy, and make compensation that is appropriate. Women, in particular, are impacted by the proposed settlement to devolve authority to the reserve with no guarantees for the equal rights of women. Sisters throughout Manitoba can help raise this issue of women’s rights with the appropriate authorities.

Anonymous local immigrant woman from Lebanon

Born to Lebansese parents in Brazil, she moved and grew up in a dysfunctional family in Lebanon with an abusive father. All her siblings left home by age 13 to escape the abusive treatment of their father. She grew up lonely, sad without self-confidence. At age 17, her father arranged for her to marry a 29 year old man from Canada, who had a Lebanese background. In fact, she was sold to the wealthy, educated, well mannered stranger, as described by her father. After the religious wedding, she was taken to her in-laws who were the authority figures and they kept her isolated from society but with little privacy at home. Her anxiety and confusion grew. There was little communication between her and her stranger husband, since they did not speak the same language. Two months after the wedding, they left Lebanon for Venezuela. This marked the end of an abusive relationship with her father and the beginning of new abusive relationship in her marriage.

She was married and remained so for 6 years, subject to the authority of her husband and taking orders from everyone. She was responsible for raising their children, working in their clothing business and cooking for the family of 6. Her request to go to school in order to learn the language was not granted. Once she learnt to communicate, her husband criticized everything she did and constantly put her down. She couldn’t leave home but just had to remain quiet and obedient. Her husband was never warm and encouraging, and sex was just for his pleasure, not hers. In time, he started fights and threatened to send her back to Lebanon. No one came to her help during these abusive moments even when she cried and screamed.

To be returned from a failed marriage would be a total disgrace in Lebanese tradition. She was kept like an ignorant child, without money, and unable to write or phone her mother or make a visit home. When their first child was born, her husband became more violent and angry because the child was a girl. When the child was 2, she was abused along with the mother. Because the husband is a Canadian citizen, she begged him to register the child as such, but received only a violent slap. Ultimately, the husband gave in and agreed for her to take a Canadian passport. As years passed by, the husband left their family business for a new business in which he became successful. In spite of that, she was afraid to ask for money from the husband for fear of being abused. Her husband would leave her and the child alone at home for days, never having them accompany him on trips or in his social life. They were left without food and hydro bills and other utilities were not paid. Her health degenerated and she experienced severe chest pains and abdominal cramps. When she finally saw a doctor, she was told that all her pains and problems were stress related.

After 9 years of suffering, she communicated with her sister and in ’96 was allowed to visit her sister, where she spent some of the happiest days of her life in Canada. She tried to open up to her sister who could only recommend that she apply for landed immigrant status in Canada. Upon return to Venezuela, her husband’s behaviour towards her and her daughter was even worse. She did not know how to change the situation for her to live in peace and safety. She re-entered Canada on December 20, ’98 and sought asylum on compassionate grounds. She was worried about her child who was silent and uncommunicative. She had seen her mother abused, never received any presents, and suffered from bedwetting. Canada now remains her only hope for herself and her daughter. She can’t go back — she would rather die first.

Anonymous local immigrant woman from Sri Lanka

She was married through an arranged marriage in 1996, to a man who has lived in Canada since 1990 and owns a factory in Montreal. Born and raised in the same town, she and her husband speak the same language, belong to the same religion and share the same cultural values. Arranged marriage is a normal process in her culture, continuing to be practised even in Canada. Before the marriage, her friends and relations asked the man why he would want to marry a disabled woman. In response he said, he had been waiting support his family and now he wanted to sacrifice through a marriage like this.

In their culture, marriage is a big event and at first he was very kind. Then a different side of his personality emerged. For example, he told her that he had rented an apartment for them at a walking distance from his sister’s home, although she had told him that her walking distance is much less than most people due to her disability. His said “don’t worry, I will carry you”. He gave her the impression that he loved her. The truth was, this marriage was a joke. During the six months they lived together he abused her badly, using her disability to abuse her emotionally. The steps he took to break the marriage were very painful. He seemed to think if he abused her emotionally, she would leave him and society would think that she is the one who left him, since divorce was not encouraged in their culture.

Finally, he stopped coming home, and sent her a divorce petition and married another woman. In concluding, she emphasized that culture and law should complement each other. Whereas according to Canadian law, you could divorce easily, this is not acceptable according to cultures of the home country, where marriage is almost a one time lifetime commitment. She tried hard to save their marriage by involving her family, the husband’s family, lawyers and others in the society, but received the same answer — they understand her points of view, but are unable to help because of the Canadian marriage law. So, he used the culture and tradition for the marriage and used the Canadian law for the divorce. If this marriage had taken place in Sri Lanka, it would not be easy for him to divorce her and destroy her future. It turned out that this man had made many common law marriages, including one in Italy, and had numerous girlfriends. Almost all of these girlfriends belong to the Sri Lankan Tamil community, where virginity is a major aspect in a woman’s marriage. There are many immigrant women with such problems in Canada. They need protection.

A Japanese-Canadian immigrant woman (with interpreter — Claude de Forest)

She married a Japanese Canadian Winnipeg business man in Japan, a real “go-getter”. In order to establish himself as a businessman in Japan he had to marry a Japanese. He made big profits for many years but now claims he is broke and can not afford to pay any maintenance for her. He is a typical case of a domineering person who takes total advantage over his wife, and virtually gets away with murder. Together, they had a son who is now 4 years old. They have lived in Japan, Cyprus and Canada, all moves intended to escape taxes and maximize his profits.

She, her husband and their son arrived in Winnipeg in May, 1997. The husband told her that he had a sister who is a lawyer in Winnipeg and that she would be waiting for them at the airport. She was afraid because their relationship was not good and they had fought over custody of their son while in Cyprus. So at Winnipeg airport she decided to call the Police. The Police called the Child and Family Services, who decided to take the child to her sister in-law’s home on grounds that the mother was abusive. Both her sister in-law and her husband as well as her brother in-law are lawyers. She has worked with two lawyers and now a third, but she has no money to pay them, nor does she have a place to stay. She must stay here for one-two years to pursue the case of the child but she has does not know how to proceed without money. She has been served with a bill of $4,000 to pay for the lawyers. Legal Aid has supported her for the third lawyer but she does not know whether to proceed with the case. She stayed at the Salvation House for few days. She has applied for residence but is looking for a room and board to stay. She can do babysitting and cleaning and would like an opportunity to pay her way.

Intervention by Stella LeJohn

These cases have frightening cultural overtones, where people marry women in order to take advantage over them. There are many cases like these that are crying out for attention. Women such as these have nowhere to turn. We must find ways to act locally as we come to think globally. Half of the world is in Winnipeg alone, not to mention all of Canada. These are refugee women, being abuse daily. Slavery is being practised amongst us. We must do something to protect the children, the offspring of these women who are struggling to raise them in the dark. We need to find ways to find new immigration ways of supervising the situation even after people land in the country. It is no longer enough to be a landed immigrant because human rights abuses occur daily. People are ill advised about their rights. Because of the language problems, people have no recourse, they are isolated in the homes, not knowing where to go for help. Their children also too often face systemic discrimination in the schools. Let us put our heads together and come up with ideas. There has to be an answer.

Back to Top of Page

Comments by Panelists on Local Presentations

Dianna Scarth:

She acknowledged deep frustration in her attempts to bridge the local and the global and can offer few new answers. She recently attended an international human rights conference in Mexico, specifically to look at complaints of pregnancy discrimination in Mexico filed by three Human Rights NGOs against the Mexican government. Some good progress was made. First observation is the importance of NGOs in dealing with the issue. The complaint against the Mexican government would have never come forward were it not for the role of the three NGOs. However frustrating the situation may appear. it is important to keep in mind that there is a very important role for NGOs. In order to bring issues forward for public scrutiny on a local and on an international level, that type of involvement is critical. Practical actions can be taken by Human Rights NGOs reporting abuses. Governments can pass laws but these are ineffective if there is no effective enforcement. Canada can offer leadership by developing models, particularly in the field of gender based analysis to show the different impacts on women and men of laws and policies. Education of women re their rights in areas like the Maquiladora can help. All mechanisms must also have teeth for enforcement. In Mexico, the Human Rights Commission is only advisory.

The Canadian provincial Human Rights Commissions have language similar to that found in UN Conventions. Most obligations are taken seriously. Provincial Human Rights Codes protect women on factors of gender, sexual orientation and family status. The legislation is clear. However, there are clear limitations and further development is required to cover current problems. It is the role of the Human Rights Commission to make sure that the law is developed to reflect social realities. To make protection of women effective is a challenge. The Human Rights Commission needs to address issues of cultural sensitivity, accessibility, education and better implementation.

The most encouraging thing about the Human Rights legislation is that the courts of Canada have given it a unique status. Human Rights is intended to be dynamic and not static. It has the status of almost Constitutional law and that in every situation it should be given a very broad and purposive interpretation. In other words, what is the impact of what is happening? Two complaints come to mind that were dealt with by the Supreme Court, one of which Madame Justice L’Heureux-Dube spoke about, the Janzen v. Platy Enterprises on sexual harassment. The other is the Brokes and Canada Safeway decision on pregnancy discrimination where Chief Justice Dixon reversed 10 years of law. As more women enter the workforce, society is changing and human rights law must change as well.

Beryl Mae Jones:

There are areas yet no courses on multicultural and human rights education, but they are vitally needed. Gender and Human Rights issues intersect locally and globally but they are not identical. Domestic violence and sexual abuse are common to both, but when culture is factored in, through the experience of slavery, aboriginal oppression, physical or mental disability, there are important differences. The voices of all must be heard. Economic factors underlie slavery and current experiences of globalization. So links between global and local must be viewed through gender, poverty and race.

It is recommended that for government mechanisms, cost of access is a factor for many; affirmative action programs are needed to overcome historical disadvantage, yet their dismantling has not occasioned a public outcry. There should be such an outcry! The gatekeepers of Human Rights are the rule makers, the activists who observe and report abuses. Sometimes the perpetrators are people in power. Human Rights concerns should be built into all Aid programs. Justice and Equality issues must be seen in the context of people’s lives. In the building of our global village and the push for education, there may be even greater inequality unless multiple competencies are recognized and valued. We all need knowledge of Human Rights if we are to become true global citizens. We need to learn to take care of one another.

Back to Top of Page

Comment by Justice L’Heureux-Dube:

Shares an experience she had in Pakistan, where she worked for judicial education in India and Pakistan every year, a program where CIDA funded the equality judicial education in South Asia Pacific and Canada exported its knowledge and experience in those domains. In Pakistan there is an NGO who is working on a language to educate 3 year olds in human rights. It is an interesting project for us to think about. These are the young people who carry our torch, it is hear that human rights education should start.

Estella Muyinda:

Estella raised several critical questions in her comments regarding the international and local panel presentations.

First, Estella endorsed the recommendation for Human Rights Education starting in kindergarten, where children will be able to tell their parents about human rights.

In reflecting on women and violence, Estella asked the question, why do racially visible minority women not report violence? This is because they are often kept in a “box”, the family home, to which men retain the key. They are too often cut off with no one to talk to or to whom they can report incidents of violence. If they report the incidents to neighbours or relatives, they may be threatened with beatings and with being “sent back” to their country of origin by their spouse.

She also spoke about refugee and immigrant “women at risk”. What can be done? Government Ministers should be lobbied. There needs to be education, and safer, more supportive procedures in the refugee camps so women who have been abused can tell their stories. Can women be “fast- tracked” and brought to Canada more quickly? These women are “at risk” and yet expected to go through lengthy immigration procedures. Government should be lobbied to hasten this process — the paper work can be done afterwards.

In response to a call for an action plan that would assist developing countries in obtaining equity, Estella encouraged individuals to exercise their bargaining power (money). When investing money in Mutual Funds, individuals can hold corporations accountable for their actions in the developing world. They should investigate whether the corporations are selling military materials? Are they behaving ethically? Are they employing women (and men) in intolerable and unfair working conditions? Are they supporting the sex trade and/or pornography?

Concerning the issue of poverty, it was Estella’s observation that this was the state in some parts of Canada. Women can work to eliminate poverty, the chief factor correlated with human rights abuse. They can work for adequate housing, affordable and nutritious food. Clean water is taken for granted here in Canada. However, there are still some communities without clean water. Poverty is also reflected in the homelessness situation found in all the cities of Canada. In downtown Winnipeg, there are boarded up houses which could be renovated to serve as shelter. Why is this not done?

Back to Top of Page

Comment by Justice L’Heureux-Dube:

What has been said here is that immigrants, particularly women from the African community would not report cases of violence. She suggests that communities should go to these women? Communities should be informed of who is coming in their community and those persons should be invited to meet the community, those new members of the community (women and men) should be known and made to know that there would be someone to call (perhaps someone with a card). They should be assured that there would be someone to help out in case of trouble. This is reaching out rather than letting them come in, they won’t.

Ertrice Eddy:

There is so much similarity among the problems. Abused women experience low self-esteem and feel they are alone. Local NGOs like Immigrant Women’s Association of Manitoba (IWAM) and Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and many of the associations are working to provide assistance, but more is needed.

The underlying factor is that men do have tremendous power, regardless of culture or country of origin. There is the inherent power at birth, the power that is re-enforced by the system, and their tendency to use their power to keep it regardless of Human Rights prohibitions. Not all men are “bad”, but the system re-enforces abusive attitudes. Yet all men are born of women, they have sisters and daughters. It is something in the system that requires a lot of work.

In the health care field, because many women have experienced violence personally, here and in their country of origin, they are reluctant to discuss it, especially when they are not familiar with the health care environment. They will often make indirect complaints, and the underlying causes are missed. In Canada, while each individual has a right to care, many immigrant or aboriginal women experience language/communication difficulties. Their husbands may actively discourage them from reporting abuse. Some may have suffered from torture or female genital mutilation, and their children may have witnessed unspeakable events, but medical people may be in a hurry and jump to conclusions. The medical profession in Canada also too often practices denial of such realities in Canada. Education is needed to deal with both child witnesses and adult sufferers. Education of the public/grassroots people in terms of what are human rights as well as education of health care professionals, judges, mainstream people who are trying to understand the cultural issues in many situations.

NGOs like LEAF work to educate judges, grassroots and the mainstream. However, usually enough time is not allocated. A two hour workshop cannot accommodate hearing live stories. She also endorsed the stress put by earlier speakers on reaching children early in their school lives with Human Rights Education. If “Don’t Litter” can catch on, why not “No Violence”.

Comment from Justice L’Heureux-Dube:

Thinks we should be in the Film business, being the most powerful instrument for education. Why should we let the Film business pollute our children with violence when we could make a film to show them what human rights is all about! Underlining what Ms. Eddy said, she re-emphasized that abuse of women and abuse of children is torture! In the International War Crime Tribunal, rape and abuse of women has been declared a war crime — a crime against humanity.

In terminating the session, Justice L’Heureux-Dube said that “Women’s Rights” is not only the business of women. It is the business of everybody and it is the business of men. She particularly salutes those men who are present in this Human Rights Tribunal.

Back to Top of Page

Recommendations from Workshops
Afternoon Plenary, March 27

Workshop # 1: Aboriginal

Facilitated by Giséle Saurette Roch and Myrna Gamblin
Recorded by Molly McCracken
Back to Top of Page

Workshop #2: Global

Facilitated by Monica Singh
Recorded by Elizabeth Smith
Back to Top of Page

Workshop #3: Local

Facilitated by Muriel Smith
Recorded by Jugnu Lhoda

Summary of Local

Back to Top of Page