Mr. Dion please ask Mr. Harper: where is our political and corporate gender parity?

Has anyone else sought to understand why some very obvious inequities exist in our society? How come women collectively still make less money than men? Why are there so many fewer elected officials who are women than men? Why are the top corporate positions filled overwhelmingly with men more than women?

Quite rightly, measures have been taken at some levels to fix this. Legislation exists to preserve the principle of equal pay for equal work. Some political leaders, like Stephane Dion, are trying to undo this trend: Mr. Dion committed to running more Liberal women candidates in the next federal election (33% to be exact), to increase the percentage of women sitting in the House of Commons. The goal is to one day achieve gender parity.

What is Steven Harper doing to remove barriers for women who would like to serve and deserve to rise to senior political and corporate levels?

WHAT ABOUT THE PRIVATE SECTOR?

My observation about the private sector's role in all of this is also one that I gleaned long before I became one myself. As such, if the decision making attributes of the corporation were measured against the standards that are set for humans in our society, the corporation would be institutionalised because its decision making process is "anti-social". Compassion, empathy and forgiveness would never be tolerated at a board meeting if it took away from the 'sole' purpose of the corporation, which is profit. Charity and giving back to the community etc. (to be accepted by the corporate elite) would need to be ultimately about "marketing the goodwill" of the corporation for ultimate purpose of increased profits – otherwise it could never be justified). Tax write offs via charitable donations and/or the creation of foundations provide only "the illusion" that the corporation can behave in manner we would expect our most noble citizens to live up to.
With that being said, would anyone agree that the corporation has little incentive to on its own promote "gender parity" amongst its top executives, unless this objective could be shown to be either profitable or an effective manner to "market the illusion" of the one’s corporation having admirable human attributes compassion, sensitivity and fairness. Apart from that (or if it were quantifiably more profitable or legislated), is there any incentive for corporations to allow women to reach parity with men in the top corporate positions?

Are there any disincentives? Well, some men who already hold those jobs might feel threatened if access to their positions and closed business networks were made widely accessible to those who might currently considered "outsiders". What about those who feel women are less capable to perform in such positions because of their gender? What about those who believe the best place for women is in the home raising their children? What about those committed to preserving "patriarchy" in spite of the ever more powerful women's movement and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in 1982.

For those most adamant about preserving patriarchy and the advantages that had been bestowed upon men (at the expense of women in business and politics) by those who founded our great nation, could there a way to institutionalise the preference by some that women are to be primarily in charge of the home and the children while men are in charge of everything else?

FEMINISM

When I was a graduate student I spent the better part of term reading and writing papers about feminism. I recall reading Rosemarie Tong's "Feminist Thought: a comprehensive introduction", which helped me to better understand the "big tent" called feminism and appreciate it for what it is worth.

In reading this I understood that most of feminism was about fairness, equality and other universal principles that are consistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Tong's premise is that only one branch of feminism, Radical Feminism" is either about blind advocacy, reverse discrimination or possibly "man hating".

The original feminist, recently deceased co-founder of the National Organisation of Women Betty Friedan, split with others in the feminism movement years ago because it was taken over by radicals / and or special interests. Ironically, some of these special interests are groups of both men and women whose objective is either about institutionalising patriarchy and/or giving women outright advantages with respect to their homes, children, marriages - all matters having to do with the family. Please consider that there are also women who are proponents of patriarchy (sometimes euphemised it as chivalry) and would take the key to unlock the door that gives them domestic power even if it means foregoing the key to unlock the door that would give them political or corporate power.

With that being said, the feminist movement is still on many pages when it comes to defining what is equality and which advantages in society the Collective would most like to pursue. This lack of unanimity and polarisation within the feminist movement has left the door open to some - who for the sake of simplicity I will describe as "old boys" - to determine which advantages shall be bestowed onto women and which will not.

THE JUSTICE INDUSTRY: THE MOST POWERFUL LOBBY OF ALL

To what extent the State should be involved in helping to sort out complex situations affecting lovers, married persons and of children is a topic where there could be much debate. Some persons, such as Pierre Elliot Trudeau, were adamant that the State has no role in the bedrooms of Canadians. This left the door open to modifications in our laws to allow same sex couples to find a legitimate place in our society.

However, the opposite is true with respect to when the State becomes involved matters of the family affecting Canadians who choose to separate or divorce. The State is arguably “way too involved”. Why? It is profitable for the police, the lawyers and the judges – collectively “the justice industry”.

When it comes to shaping our public policy, the “gun” and / or “pharmaceutical” lobbies have got nothing on the “justice lobby”. After all, the “justice lobby” has infiltrated our governance processes including how we formulate our public policy and what it is that we legislate and how. Given who it is who is involved, is it implausible to consider that public policy is sometimes made to also consider of the funding / profit and /or other benefits that would benefit the police, lawyers and judges?

Policing for profit: a gender based approach to domestic violence

We have seen recently corruption with the police at the level of the RCMP with misappropriation of its pension fund monies. We also saw last week a murder – suicide committed by Acting Inspector Kelly Johnson of the London Police, who was responsible for the domestic violence file at that institution, whose whole philosophy in policing is that “men are the aggressors” and “women are the victims”. This is in spite of the fact that these are patriarchal assumptions that are contradicted by a study of 177,000 cases domestic violence cases by Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach. Dr. Fiebert examined 196 scholarly investigations, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

What is the truth? ... and why the spin?

Opportunism by lawyers...

We have seem an entire industry of lawyers change their areas of preferred practice to “ride waves of litigation”. Where insurance became less viable for many with no-fault insurance becoming the norm in parts of the country and changing rules around the laws of tort, family law has become more and more popular and more and more profitable. In the early 1980s, the movie Kramer versus Kramer with Dustin Hoffman and Merryl Streep highlighted the vulnerabilities persons undergoing divorce face personally, financially and with respect to their families. The result, find a good lawyers or else.

In Canada, the State and the adversary system (lawyers, judges and courts) rightly or wrongly become involved in complex family breakdowns where finances and children needed to be shared. Is this the best way for “families in transition” with or without children to resolve their differences? Perhaps such intervention should be restricted to cases where a husband or wife is not “being fair” with respect to finances and / or children and according to “objective criteria”. There are rules that could be applied via mediation of other dispute resolution mechanisms to standardise the outcomes without the need for persons who once loved one another to become entrenched, make decisions out of fear or an adversarial process.

But where would that leave the too many lawyers who compete for too little work?

The Judiciary: loyal to "blind justice" or to the lawyers they once were?

In a common law system, jurisprudence is where judges build upon and use the decisions of other judges to justify future decisions. Current Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella had a progressive career as both an Ontario Supreme Court judge and an Ontario Court of Appeal judge. Two decisions from time when Justice Abella was a rising star judge seem to have led to the justice industry having almost exclusive control over those families who choose to divorce:

1. if either one does not seek independent legal advice when settling a family matter, the Court can overturn that agreement at the request of the plaintiff or the defendant (so you had better get a lawyer).

2. If it can be shown that either party did not do “full financial disclosure” the court can re-open an agreement to re-distribute monies 10 or even 15 years later.

Such jurisprudence forces Canadians to use more the courts in matters of the family, making it expensive financially and emotionally. On the other hand, many persons argue the State has no legitimate role apart from levelling the playing field, especially if these two underlying assumptions are upheld: 1. that it is in the children’s best interest to have meaningful relationships with both parents; 2. that partners in a marriage both have roles and responsibilities with respect to the home, family and children, as well as the finances.

IS PATRIARCHY AT THE HEART OF OUR FAMILY LAW SYSTEM?

The Court and the adversary process can become inappropriate in matters of the family post charter when certain patriarchal principles drive it. Even though there was a time (way back when patriarchy was accepted and expected) when parents, typically bread-winning men, could leave their families in the lurch following a divorce. That is why laws were created to protect against persons who do not honour their family responsibilities. At that time, the tender year’s doctrine protected the special relationship between mothers and their children.

With the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, patriarchy was forced underground. At the same time, the appropriateness of "tender year’s doctrine" wore off with the entry of women at equal levels into the workforce, the frequency with which men care for their children while their wives work, the discovery that special relationships also exist between children and their fathers.

So, how can it be that, with all other things being equal, gender is the single most important factor in the determining of child custody in Canada in 2007?

Is it unreasonable to think the main reasons for this are:

1. profits for legal industry;
2. continued corporate and political power for “old boys” who believe the place for women is "in the home" and "with the children"?

WOULD FIXING FAMILY LAW ALLOW WOMEN TO BE EQUAL?

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about removing race, religion, language, age, gender etc. from how our policies and laws treat the various issues facing Canadians. If justice is going to be blind, (a fundamental principle of our justice system) merit and need, not gender and/or entitlement needs to be the factor used by judges in determining who receives primary care of their children and who pays support to whom. As such, the role of women “in the home with the children”, as “caregivers not breadwinners” would no longer be forced upon (or taken advantage of) by men and women who choose to divorce by the State.

If the principles of the Charter were treated as a set of standards designed to filter out unacceptable or biased policy and practices, the “justice industry” would not be able to succeed in continuing to deliver a gender biased family law system under the auspices of “keeping justice blind”. Spin, such as the best interest of the child is to be with the mother apart from extra-ordinary situations, could then no longer be used successfully to bypass (veto) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to matters of the family, which has been a common justification for a really unfair system.

Should 50% of Canadians who divorce be forced into traditional roles as defined by their gender?

Is the world considerably more patriarchal post divorce?

Is life after divorce (i.e. following when one has been trapped by and dealt with by justice industry) very different?

Does the State build in the obligation for men of divorce to support the family by forcing them to be proficient at the level of the corporation?

Does this mean there is less room for women at "corporate clubs", who may have no choice but to stay home or hang out with those who garner less influence?

Would breaking this trend liberate us from institutionalised patriarchy via the justice industry's approach to dealing with matters of the family?

CONCLUSION

Would such changes to remove “gender” from all decision-making as per the Charter really have an impact on the extent to which women have greater access to political and corporate power? It would certainly stop stereotypes around roles being reinforce by our institutions. It possibly could make "merit" and "need" the most important factors in determining who does what with their lives.

Are all issues women’s issues? What about men’s issues? These are polarizing terms. If all issues were people issues, would it not be more about who chooses to play what roles as they positively contribute to our society?

Proponents of patriarchy as well as those who ‘profit’ from patriarchy in our society may not like this type of thinking. However, if we are going to live in a fair and just society, we cannot pick and choose what to favour and what to reject depending upon how it affects us personally. The tendency some of us have to try to manipulate processes under the aupicies of a fair and equitable system is where it all breaks down

The methodology we have adopted, legislated and are collectively proud of as Canadians is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why don’t we apply it fairly and universally and trust it will be to our advantage collectively and individually as Canadians?

Brothers, Sisters and Children, Happy Father’s Day 2007.

Edgewater Views.

2/3 of Canadians want elected judges: judiciary/lawyers call it a bad idea.

I read earlier today the results of a Strategic Counsel poll suggesting that 2/3 of Canadians favour elected judges. It did not surprise me that both Canada's legal industry and the judiciary immediately came out with reasons as to why this is a very bad idea.

The Globe and Mail reports that Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry said in an interview that he couldn't see how impartiality could be maintained in a system of elected judges: “it could really destroy the very best traditions of an independent judiciary. I think it would be a tragic initiative for the administration of justice.”

I also read Devin's blog today from the roll ... should I be surprised (since we agree to disagree on this subject) that he would support Chief Justice McMurtry's angle by posting the blog title: "Keep Justice Blind"?

.

Even the Conservative Party has stopped calling for elected judges now that they are in power, in spite of its previous concerns about the power of judges in Canada. Former federal justice minister Vic Toews said last year: “That's just not our tradition…I actually think our system is pretty good. It just needs to be fixed.” This is very convenient for a party led by a man whose private objective is no less than reforming the ideology of Canadians via massive decentralisation and institutionalised conservatism.

I find it alarming that those with the most to lose from judicial reform frame this sign of discontent by Canadians with our (arguably) unaccountable system of judicial appointments in such a narrow/fear based manner. Would anyone expect lawyers and judges to say anything against the "love in" between lawyers and judges? Among other things, our current system acts as if judicial appointees are like Plato’s Guardians and beyond self-interest. Our judges are appointed by the political party in power, they are appointed for life and they are not accountable to anyone. The only way to remove a judge from the bench is with the agreement of the Governor General, Parliament and the Senate and this has never been attempted. Does this not sound like a blank cheque?

Furthermore, this unprecedented power gives Supreme Court Justices in particular in essence a "veto" as strong or stronger than the notwithstanding clause on matters of Canadian public policy via strategic jurisprudence. When the by-product of specific jurisprudence can provides a marked boost to revenues collectable by the legal industry, there is reason for concern. After all, our judges all began their careers as lawyers and have been known to make controversial decisions that benefit their “brethren“ sometimes more obviously than others.

As a means of demonstrating just how “on the mark” are the instincts of many Canadians on this topic - who know there is a problem with a lack of accountability but do not know exactly what is the solution - I republish gender the discrimination ratings of 22 Ontario Court of Appeal Justices over 10 years (1996-2006). More than 800 cases were reviewed to determine the results. The methodology of the study is explained here and here:

.

D = % Female Wins - % Male Wins, Discrimination count, Category (or extent gender was a factor in judicial decisions on matters pertaining to the family)

.

For Abella JA D = 76.5 - 6.4 = 70.1 % (heavy)

For Feldman JA D = 72.7 - 13.3 = 59.4 % (heavy/high)

For Charron JA D = 70.0 - 7.4 = 62.6 % (heavy)

For Simmons JA D = 80.0 - 23.8 = 56.2 % (high)

For Lang JA D = 50.0 - 0 = 50.0 % (high)

For Wheiler JA D = 77.8 - 26.1 = 51.7 % (high)

For McMurtry CJO D = 69.9 - 40.0 = 29.1 % (moderate/high)

For O’Connor DCJO D= 80.0 - 30.0 = 50.0 % (high)

For Goudge JA D = 77.8 - 39.1 = 38.7% (high)

For Borins JA D = 70.0 - 27.3 = 42.7 % (high)

For Rosenburg JA D = 71.4 - 33.3 = 38.1 % (high)

For Armstrong JA D = 66.7 - 26.3 = 40.4 % (high)

For Moldaver JA D = 52.6 - 6.7 = 45.9 % (high)

For Macpherson JA D = 62.5 - 14.3 = 48.2 % (high)

For Gillese JA D = 85.7 - 50.0 = 35.7 % (high)

For Juriasz JA D = 60.0 - 0.0 = 60.0 % (high/heavy)

For Blair JA D = 50.0 - 9.1 = 41.9 % (high)

For Cronk JA D = 66.7 - 42.1 = 24.6 % (moderate)

For Sharpe JA D = 33.3 - 11.7 = 21.3 % (moderate)

For Catzman JA D = 63.6 - 43.7 = 19.9 % (moderate)

For Labrosse JA D = 61.5 - 45.0 = 16.5 % (moderate)

For Laskin JA D = 55.5 - 47.0 = 8.5 % (slight)

.
The data show that Justice McMurtry himself was rated as favouring female litigants close to one-third of the time more often than male litigants on matters pertaining to the family.
.
That is neither here nor there. What is of most concern here? The two worst offenders according to the study,- Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron - now sit on the Supreme Court of Canada. Because of the current structure, does this not mean that Justice Abella and Justice Charron are two of the most powerful Canadians when it comes to shaping our public policy? ... stronger than Parliament both collectively and individually?
.
It seems Canadians are perhaps "right on the mark" when it comes to our being uncomfortable - sniffing out - matters that lack sufficient accountability, such as this. After all, would any of us really buy the argument that any of our Justices have "philosopher-king" like attributes that makes accountability unnecessary? Or, would anyone dare say the adversary system, rules and procedure keeps judicial decision making perfectly in check?

.

Canadians know there are problems with the current system of judicial appointments. If a poll is worded so that Canadians understand "elected" to be perfectly congruent with "accountable", the framing of this proposed solution by Justice McMurtry, Devin and Vic Toews as having similar baggage to that of the American system sounds like spin to me. There are many ways to make our judiciary more accountable without any drastic risks. It just takes political will and courage to stand up to those who benefit from the status quo.