June 15, 2001

The Honourable Janet Ecker, Minister for Education
Minister’s Office
Mowat Block, 22nd floor
900 Bay Street
Toronto Ont M7A 1L2
janet_eckerco@ontla.ola.org
Fax 416-325-2608

Dear Minister Ecker,

We have been following the debate about the tax credit for private-school education in Ontario and are writing to you to express some concern.

Our anxiety is based on the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual students and staff in the Ontario’s schools.

As I’m sure you already know, those teens who have already started to think they might be gay, or know that they are, have a very bad time in our education system. They have been assessed in various studies as being the teen group at highest risk of suicide. In March 2000 in BC, Hamed Nastoh, a 14-year-old, grade-9 schoolboy in the Surrey schoolboard, killed himself by jumping off a bridge, leaving a note saying that his death was caused by the homophobic bullying he faced at school.

Since unfortunately teens cannot rely on their parents being at all welcoming of the questioning or declaration of their sexual direction, a larger onus falls on the school.

The Toronto schoolboard’s efforts at equity for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals were begun in response to the death of gay teacher Ken Zeller, who was beaten to death by five teenage pupils.

And I think I have to underscore at this point, that we have a great responsibility to those living outside Toronto, especially those in smaller towns and in rural areas where resources who are of a friendly disposition towards lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are much harder – and in some places impossible – to find.

If private schools are to be supported through the tax system, they must be publicly accountable in the same way that public schools are. This goes beyond ensuring that private schools teach the common, provincially approved curriculum. It means they must also ensure that they maintain all of the standards and follow all the requisite policies determined by the Ministry of Education to which public schools are subject.

Most particularly, private schools must be required to uphold and promote both the objectives and the specific provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code to ensure they promote tolerance and inclusiveness for students, teachers, and other staff, and in respect of the broader community of Ontario.

I need hardly point out that, in addition to being students and staff in Ontario’s schools, we are the lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and bisexual parents of children who should not be taught to hate their parents. We are the straight parents of children growing up to be gay. We are the partners and family of school staff whose daily life can be made unendurable. We are the totally unrelated lesbian, gay, and bisexual taxpayers and voting citizens of Ontario who do not want to see our money used to promote hatred towards us among upcoming generations. Heterosexual family and friends of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals do not want to see their money used for schools to promote hatred of their gay friends and relatives.

Nearly half the private schools in Ontario are religion-based, and many of the religious schools (evangelical Christian and fundamentalist Muslim schools in particular), as we know, are deeply homophobic. They often promote religious teachings and values that are sexist and/or intolerant towards other religions and cultures. They actively promote discrimination and bigotry, especially towards women and gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Some religious groups are known to actively attempt to “cure” gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Some have characterized us as “evil” and “satanic”.

We understand that private schools of a religious nature would be exempt from the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code (under §18). Nonetheless, the province has a duty to its lesbian, gay, and bisexual taxpayers and citizens and to the spirit of the Code to provide what human-rights protection it can to disadvantaged groups. The province must not put itself into a position where, in order to protect its human-rights reputation in one direction, it diminishes its human-rights protection in another. There is a clear line to be drawn between a religious belief as to the value of an action and the acceptability of an identity. Even where an identity is frowned upon, there is a clear line to be drawn between religious dogma and the acting out of prejudice and hatred. Schools found to countenance or promote these views should not receive tax benefits or should have their eligibility for tax credits removed.

We appreciate that various religions and denominations feel they are disadvantaged in comparison with the Catholic school system, but we cannot support making gay lives the price of their equality. So if the tax-credit system goes through, it is vital that explicit controls be put in place: both provincially mandated requirements and systematic regular monitoring.

Nor can this be constructed after the fashion of the Ontario Human Rights Code, where complaining is the responsibility of the victim. Teens are often unaware of their rights and unable to navigate their way through complicated complaints procedures. In particular, if they do not have family support, their situation may deteriorate markedly by making a complaint public.

It seems to us on balance preferable that funding not be extended to private schools, since they are more difficult to assess and control than those in the public sector which, in turn, will tend to be undermined by increased support for private schooling. But if private schools are to be supported, stringent controls must be put in place in order not to replace one set of human rights violations (unequal treatment of religion) by another (increased prejudice against women and lesbians, gays, and bisexuals).

Yours sincerely,

Christine Donald
CLGRO spokesperson

September 21, 2001

Attorney General David Young
Ministry of the Attorney General
720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
Toronto M5G 2K1
416-326-2220

Dear Mr Young,

We are writing about Bill 86, 2001, the Rescuing Children from Sexual Exploitation Act, An Act to rescue children trapped in the misery of prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation and to amend the Highway Traffic Act sponsored by your government. The Act, as you know, makes it possible to remove from the streets children and teens suspected of prostitution or involvement in pornography – with or without a warrant – and either entrust them to their parent(s) or responsible adult(s) or take them to a “safe house” where they can be held for three days or with court approval for up to 30 days for counseling and healthcare, a safe facility being according to §2 any “premises designated by the minister.”

Although we were alarmed by the vagueness of §5 “It is not necessary in an application or warrant to describe the child by name or to specify the premises where the child is located” and also by the provision for removing a child/teen without a warrant, our main concern is with the fate of children and teens who are apprehended under this legislation.

Many street kids are lesbian, gay, or bisexual – we understand, in fact, a disproportionate number. We have seen studies claiming a range of 25% to 50%.

As you doubtless know, lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth – both those who know they are gay and those who are thinking they might be – have a terrible time. Parents are in general not delighted to find they have lesbian, gay, or bisexual offspring. Schools are not equipped to make good the counseling vacuum left by parents. Studies estimate that LGB youth are at double or treble the risk of suicide attempts of other children or teens.

We understand that children and teens come to leave the parental home for a number of reasons. In the case of lesbian, gay, and bisexual children and teens homophobia on part of the parents is likely to have played a large role in their departure. Some children and teens are ridiculed when it is known they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, some forced into negative counseling, some subject to parental violence, and some expelled from the home.

Therefore, we feel it essential that, if children/teens have left the parental home because of the suffering caused by homophobia, they are not forced to return to that same damaging situation.

In our 1997 report Systems Failure, the result of a 4-year survey and research funded by Health Canada, we show that the shelters and services to which distressed LGB teens and children might turn are not well equipped to serve them. We showed that over 95% of all those who had experience of physical and mental-healthcare professionals felt that they did not adequately deal with lesbian, gay and bisexual people or with issues relating to sexual orientation.

We are therefore concerned about the homophobia likely to be faced by a child or teen apprehended under this new Act to rescue children – at the hands of the police, counselors, and health professionals to whom the child/teen might be sent, and staff of the “safe facility” where the child/teen might be lodged – particularly if the facility is run by a religious-based organization, as many such are known to be hostile to a lesbian, gay, or bisexual orientation.

As you can see, for an apprehended child/teen to be faced with compounded homophobia at this point would be anything from distressing to fatal.

We therefore ask you to tell us what measures have been put in place to ensure the interests and well-being of children/teens are ensured by

1) training police, counselors, health professionals, and safe-facility staff in sexual orientation awareness and issues

2) insisting personnel take anti-homophobia training to qualify for this program

3) insisting prospective “safe facilities” demonstrate an understanding of these issues before they can be designated by the minister

4) treating in a dignified fashion those children and teens who they know they are or feel they might be lesbian, gay, or bisexual; respecting their choices and presenting their options to live as lesbian, gay or bisexual to them in an honest and open fashion.

5) guaranteeing, and setting up a procedure for, accountability in this area.

Yours sincerely,

C M Donald
CLGRO spokeswoman

November 1, 2001

CLGRO
Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario
Box 822 Station A, Toronto Ont. M5W 1G3 Canada
Phone 416-405-8253

MEDIA ADVISORY

On November 5, 2001, a trial before a judge of the Provincial Court resumes at 10:00 am in Old City Hall involving Robert Schisler, a gay man who alleges Toronto police officers assaulted him and made anti-gay comments during an incident that led to his arrest in July 1999. He alleges the police uttered homophobic slurs and inflicted significant, visible injuries during the arrest. Mr. Schisler was charged with Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle and Obstructing a Police Officer in the Line of Duty. The incident arose while Schisler and another man were in Schisler’s parked van, with curtains drawn, on Church Street.

Schisler’s lawyer will seek an end to the prosecution, arguing police have failed, during the two years since the charges were laid, to disclose their case against Schisler. In fact, a judge at an earlier point in the proceeding ordered the police to disclose their case. The proceedings have dragged on now for over two years, causing severe emotional and financial distress to Schisler. He has been receiving medical treatment for stress incurred by the charges and the delays in dealing with them. Schisler has paid over $40,000 in legal fees to defend himself thus far and is at risk of having to declare bankruptcy.

“My life has been turned inside out”, Schisler states. But he remains determined to fight what he contends are unfounded criminal charges and homophobia on the part of the arresting officers.

For more information contact:

Tom Warner
416-405-8253.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
(Who will guard us from the guardians?)
— Juvenal, Satires, vi, 347 c 116 AD

The Hon. Anne McLellan
Minster of Justice
Government of Canada

Dear Ms McLellan,

I am writing to express our concerns about the federal anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-36.

We fully understand there is fear (and, alas, much fear-mongering) in Canada at present as a result of America’s war with Afghanistan. We understand that Canadians want to be safe and to feel safe. We understand that it is the job of the federal government to respond to all of this in an appropriate way.

But we are worried about the repercussions for our own communities, the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities across Canada. And the reason for our apprehension is the record of the authorities who will be given extra powers in the fight against terrorism.

Eric Rice of the Canadian Bar Association argues that the definition of terrorism under C-36 “could include legitimate activities that upset the social order, like the recent illegal strikes waged by nurses and truckers, anti-globalization marches, or First Nation demonstrations” – and the civil disobedience used as a last resort by women and minority groups whose rights are threatened.

We feel it imperative to recognize that this bill is being enacted in a time of crisis and bestows on various agencies extra-ordinary powers. In order that the situation brought about by these new and far-reaching powers does not become the norm, we also feel it imperative that a “sunset clause” be built into the legislation to ensure a) that its term is limited to three years or less, b) that it cannot be renewed easily or without public debate, and c) that an annual report be made, tabled in parliament and accessible to the public, on the actions taken under Bill C-36.

Further, it must be recognized that the RCMP and many local police forces across the country have investigated, kept records on, and, in some cases, harassed lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and organizations, assuming that our sexual orientation makes us a security risk. We have seen little evidence of changed mentality among these officials.

This makes the proposed police powers of email and phone monitoring a particular worry for us. The capacity police will be given to put suspected troublemakers into preventative detention is even more worrying. It gives the police the power to throw in jail anyone they choose, without justification or recourse for the detainee. Further, the fundamental right to not answer questions will be stripped away, and, as the CBA points out, this powerful combination erases the distinction between suspect and witness. We fear that, as in the police’s recent Project Guardian in London Ontario, there is opportunity for abuse: people can be kept in jail until they confess to whatever they think will improve their situation.

Unfortunately, even though the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and most provincial human rights legislations offer us protection on the grounds of sexual orientation, it is still the case that people lose their jobs, their housing, and sometimes their children when they encounter prejudice as a result of their sexual orientation being known. Nor is our human rights protection complete: for example, hate literature directed at people of a particular sexual orientation is not proscribed in the Criminal Code.

In short, even though Canada has treated us better than many countries do, we are still highly vulnerable.

For this bill to make us feel safe, we would need to know that policies, procedures, and training were being mandated by the legislation, put in place immediately, and then regularly monitored for compliance to make sure that those entrusted with the duty of assessing security risks are not misled by their prejudice into thinking that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are an apt target simply because they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

And we would need to know that they have received a strong message from the government to let them know that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are not a target approved by the federal government.

Yours sincerely,

C M Donald
CLGRO spokeswoman

September 22, 2002

Hamilton Spectator,
Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

We were sorry to see in MP John Bryden’s Ottawa Report (summer 2002) that he feels the main reason for his opposing legal recognition of same-sex marriage is to enable judges to refuse adoption/custody on the basis of sexual orientation.

The intent of legal change is to make sure that children’s rights are protected by giving them sound legal relationships to their parents and to ensure that judicial attitudes to sexual orientation are not a factor in deciding the future of children. The best interests of the children are best served by a prejudice-free assessment of their environment, be it straight or gay.

Bryden is being disingenuous in ignoring this – either that or his own suggestion that the court thinks MPs ignorant of human rights may have more basis than he thinks.

C M Donald
CLGRO spokeswoman

December 17, 2002

The Honourable Ernie Eves
Premier of Ontario
Room 281, Main Legislative Building
Toronto ON M7A 1A1

Dear Premier Eves:

I am writing to express our support for Bill 220, An Act to amend the Police Services Act with respect to the disciplining of police officers and to reinstate a fair and impartial process with respect to public complaints about police officers.

It is essential that the tremendous amount of power entrusted to the Police to enable them to protect and serve our community is balanced by an equally powerful standard of accountability. To ensure the trust of the public, and in particular vulnerable individuals and groups, a system for handling complaints against the police which is independent from the police themselves is imperative. It is also imperative that third party complaints are allowed to ensure a means of seeking protection for those who are unable to bring complaints themselves, and to help identify systemic problems which may not be evident to those overseeing the police services.

Such a system as is proposed in this legislation will provide an important step toward establishing the level of accountability and trust needed to reassure all citizens of Ontario that they will be treated fairly and safely. We urge you to support this Bill.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Richard L. Hudler
CLGRO Chair

cc:
Howard Hampton, MPP
Dalton McGuinty, MPP
George Smitherman, MPP
XTRA!, NOW, eye, fab, and Siren magazines

March 25, 2003

Trish Gorie
Charities Directorate
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Tower A
320 Queen Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0L5

Re: Consultation on Proposed Policy: Registered Charities – Political Activities; Registering Charities that Focus on Eliminating Racial Discrimination.

Dear Ms. Gorie:

Enclosed are commentary we are providing on the CCRA’s proposed Registered Charities – Political Activities and Registering Charities that Focus on Eliminating Racial Discrimination policies.

Our feedback is directly in response to sections of each of the documents and is numerically referenced to the documents’ subheadings and page numbers.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this commentary. We look forward to the CCRA’s feedback.

Nick J. Mule
CLGRO spokesperson

Enclosed: CCRA Submission

The State Has No Business in the Marriages of the Nation

CLGRO Backgrounder (Published in Outwords, August 2002):

The marriage/common-law structure of Canadian relationships recognition should be rethought.

Marriage should not be a relationship that is legislated at all by the government. Marriage should be a purely religious ceremony with no legal implications. It should no longer be given special status or legal privileges.

We prefer a system be evolved based on the individual as the core unit, with allowance for support of others (such as children).

But if the legal recognition of couple-relationships is maintained as a core unit in law, we think a “registered domestic partnership” structure – a form of optional civil union – should be adopted. Under such a structure, common-law regulations should be brought into line with marital relationship regulations and should apply to and cover all the aspects of relationships regulated by the federal and provincial governments in Canada.

If the legal recognition of couple-relationships is maintained as a core unit in law, the system of couple-relationships recognition should be modified so that individuals may choose whom to register as their significant other and their choice should not be restricted to those with whom they are involved in a sexual/conjugal relationship.

If the marriage/common-law structure of Canadian relationships recognition is maintained

Although we prefer that the marriage/common-law structure of Canadian relationships recognition not be maintained in law, if it is, no difference should be made between same-sex and heterosexual relationships. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people should be able to enter into these institutions on exactly the same terms as heterosexuals.

If marriage as a legal entity is retained, anyone entering a same-sex marriage should have that marriage legally recognized by the federal and provincial governments of the country on exactly the same terms as those of heterosexuals. Common-law relations and what are now called “same-sex partnerships” should have exactly the same rights, privileges, and obligations as those of marital relationships.

Rationale

CLGRO seeks to create equity in the treatment of the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities in this country. This means both that we work to end all discrimination against these communities and that we work towards a society that recognizes the diversity of ways in which we live.

Since the Ontario Human Rights Code was changed (December 1986) to include “sexual orientation” as a grounds on which discrimination is prohibited, we have been working in the area of relationships recognition to protect our relationships and families from discrimination too.

For heterosexuals as well as for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, it is true that some relationships fit easily into the mould of the “traditional” marriage and some do not. We can see no reason why those whose relationships are not of this “traditional” kind should have fewer rights and obligations than those whose relationships do fit this model. In short, we oppose a two-tier system of relationships recognition.

The “traditional” marital model is based on a particular kind of society, specific to religious codes, cultural conventions and property rights etc. It is not relevant to many of us who live in today’s multicultural Canada.

The concept of marriage as a religious/spiritual/symbolic institution has a long history. We do not seek to change the spiritual significance for those who value that aspect of the relationship. Our objection is to the concept of marriage as a legal institution. Of course people who want a spiritual sanction of their domestic relationship can seek that sanction, but such sanction should not be binding under law unless the relationship is also a separately “registered domestic partnership” recorded by a legal authority.

The privileging of marriage often stems from a belief that marriage is a procreational institution. This is not an accurate reflection of Canadian society today. Many marriages do not produce children. Many children live in single-parent households or have parents in different households. It is clear that the needs of the young must be given priority, but it is no longer clear that marriage is the best – let alone the only – way to do this.

In addition, marriage, because of its religious origins, historically has been given connotations of morality, legitimacy, stability, and respectability. Forms of relationships outside marriage accordingly have been cast as in some way inferior: immature, immoral, illegitimate, unstable, and not respectable. At the same time, those who were not in couple-relationships (other than those in religious orders) were seen as not fulfilling their social obligations, or as flawed, unfulfilled or incomplete persons. Such values and beliefs should no longer be reflected in the public policy or the laws of Canada.

Canada as a nation does not believe that certain people are superior to others and should be treated differently. Canada is a democratic country, whose laws are based on the premise of treating its citizens equally and without prejudice. This should apply to relationships recognition too.

CLGRO’s position is:

“All people, regardless of sexual orientation, have the right to determine for themselves their primary personal relationships and to have these relationships supported and recognized in law and by social institutions.”

CLGRO Statement of Principle, adopted at the On Our Own Terms relationships recognition conference in 1989.

“CLGRO believes that, while our preference would be that benefits be made available on an individual basis (with allowances for the dependence of children, the aged, and the disabled), whenever benefits are made available to heterosexuals living in couples, these same benefits must also be made available to same-sex couples on the same footing.”

CLGRO Statement of Principle 1990.

Will you and your party:

1. recognize lesbian, gay and bisexual Ontarians as a distinct population with broad health and wellbeing issues beyond HIV/AIDS, in social policy and funding dealing with health and social services, as other populations are?

EVES (PC): Our government is committed to ensuring that Ontario is a province in which the rights and dignity of our diverse communities are respected. That’s why the Ontario Human Rights Code is such a vital guardian of human rights in Ontario. Ontario’s Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination based on a number of grounds, including sexual orientation and same-sex partnership status. Protection against discrimination and the complaint process are the same for all grounds covered by the code.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, an agency of the Ministry of Citizenship, in addition to enforcing the Code, has a mandate to conduct promotion and awareness activities to inform Ontarians of their rights and responsibilities under the Code.

Following a consultative process initiated in 1999, the Commission released new policies in 2000 regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. The policy on Discrimination and Harassment Because of Sexual Orientation sets out Human Rights Code protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and same-sex partnership status. The policy on Discrimination and Harassment Because of Gender Identity sets out OHRC position on Human Rights Code protection against discrimination based on gender identity.

In 2001-02, 2% of complaints filed with the Commission cited sexual orientation as a primary ground of discrimination. This is consistent with the past number of years.

MCGUINTY (Liberal): Ontario Liberals recognize lesbian, gay and bisexual Ontarians as a distinct population. As with Ontario’s other distinct populations and all Ontarians, we will work in government to ensure that every person in Ontario gets their unique health and social service needs met.

HAMPTON (NDP): Yes. We fully support this approach. For example, in Government we funded the Gay and Lesbian Youth Line.

2. ensure that government ministries produce and monitor compliance with anti homophobia guidelines for healthcare professionals so that we receive treatment that respects our dignity and does not endanger our health?

EVES: The Ontario Human Rights Code is in place to provide a strong foundation for the protection of rights of all Ontarians. Protection against discrimination and the complaint process are the same for all grounds covered by the Code including sexual orientation.

It may interest you to know that ethical standards are in place to protect to ensure all patients are treated fairly and equally ie: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Health Professions Procedural Code. In addition, most Ontario hospitals have on staff a ‘Patient Ombudsman’ who can investigate and resolve service complaints made by hospital patients.

MCGUINTY: Ontario Liberals will ensure that all Ontarians receive treatment that respects their dignity and does not endanger their health, including monitoring compliance with anti homophobia guidelines.

HAMPTON: Yes. We would work with professional organizations in the healthcare sector as well as gay and lesbian community representatives to develop such guidelines and methods of ensuring compliance.

3. support amending the Police Services Act to:
(a) establish effective civilian oversight and public accountability of municipal police services?
(b) establish an effective system of civilian oversight of the investigation and adjudication of third-party complaints to be laid?

EVES: The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) is an arms-length agency of the crown which is appointed by the Executive Council of the Government of Ontario. The Commission operates under the same rules and authority as the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

OCCPS ensures that all complaints against the police are investigated properly and in a timely way. The complainant may request, at any step in the process, that OCCPS intervene and rule on the decisions taken by the investigating agency and may direct alternative action. OCCPS may conduct an investigation into any matter on its own discretion and direct that appropriate action be taken against an officer or a police service.

In addition, at the local level, the Police Services Board is required by law to oversee the public complaints precess within their respective police service and ensure that the Chief of Police is following the regulatory requirements of the Police Services Act. OCCPS is expanding its education and outreach programs to make minority communities more aware of the complaints process and how it works.

MCGUINTY: An Ontario Liberal government will establish an independent police Complaints and Civilian Oversight Agency. This Civilian oversight Agency must have the confidence of both the broader community as well as the police themselves. The creation of an effective, fair, and accessible Agency demands that we commit to involving all the stakeholders to lend us their best advice to ensure that the Agency is, above all, reflective of the communities it will be charged to serve and, secondly, that there is an appropriate complaints process put into place that will address and enhance the civilian oversight role of the Agency.

HAMPTON: [a] Yes. [b] Yes. The NDP would establish an independent civilian complaints commission. Our Leader Howard Hampton has introduced Bill 220, a private members bill that would do just that and includes the ability for third party complaints to be laid.

4. mandate schools to provide a safe and positive environment for dealing with LGBT students and staff?

EVES: Our government has made a commitment to enhance respect and responsibility in schools. Over the past two years our government has fulfilled that commitment by launching a range of Safe Schools initiatives.

One of our commitments is prevention and timely intervention to keep our schools safe. That is why the elementary curriculum focuses on teaching students and equipping them with knowledge on how to resolve conflict and to treat others with respect.

Moreover – it was the Conservative Government that was also the first ever to introduce an Ontario Schools Code of Conduct (released in April 2000) that sets clear, consistent, province-wide standards for behaviour for everyone in the school system and includes a standard for how students and all those in the education system should be treated with dignity and respect.

MCGUINTY: Ontario Liberals will work with school boards to ensure that LGBT students and staff have a safe and positive environment.

HAMPTON: Yes. We would move quickly to enact a Charter of Rights for Education. This includes a guarantee of accessibility. Every child will be guaranteed access to an education unimpeded by a financial barrier or any other barrier. Bullying and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should have no place in our schools. The NDP will work with educators, students and the gay and lesbian community to ensure that all students can learn in a barrier free environment.

5. commit to making it government policy to mandate school boards to provide policies to deal with homophobia and anti-gay violence in the schools through education and anti-harassment/violence and bullying policies?

EVES: Our government was the first ever to implement a Safe Schools Act in 2000, which included the Ontario Schools Code of Conduct. Our legislation has created safer school environments throughout Ontario and helps to ensure that no student is bullied, threatened, or intimidated for whatever reason. Our position is clear – a school is a place for learning and no student should feel threatened for any reason whether it be rase, religion, creed, orientation or gender or any other reason for that matter.

Our Code of Conduct states that all members of the school community should be treated with respect and dignity and that diversity should be valued. Moreover, our government requires school boards to put in place their own codes of conduct to augment the tough Provincial Code. As part of this local code of conduct, school boards have the flexibility to set any number of unacceptable behaviors and link them to the Provincial standards of behavior.

MCGUINTY: Our Excellence for All Education platform includes A Safe Schools Plan with measures to put an end to bullying in our schools, school surveillance cameras and a school safety hotline. Included in our Plan will be initiatives to deal with homophobia and anti-gay violence in our schools. In addition, our plan includes a mandatory Character education program for all secondary schools. This program will include teaching to reinforce values such as respect for all, honesty, and fairness. Additional information on our Safe Schools and Character Education Plan are available atwww.ontarioliberal.com .

HAMPTON: Yes. See answer to question 5 [4]. The NDP will ensure that schools teach and implement anti-discrimination and violence prevention policies.

September 16, 2004

The Honourable Irwin Cotler
Minister of Justice
Attorney General of Canada
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa ON K1A OA6

Dear Minister Cotler:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Sex Laws Committee, which is a committee of individuals and organizations committed to changing Canada’s archaic laws relating to sex and sexuality. Specifically, we call upon you, as Minister of Justice, to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code that would repeal the sections dealing with “indecent acts” (S. 173.(1)) and “common bawdy-houses” (S. 197.(1) – definition of “common bawdy-house”; S. 210 and S. 211). “Indecent act” is not defined and the “bawdy-house” provisions of the Criminal Code are Victorian-era laws that seek to legislate morality by criminalizing consenting sexual activity. In addition, the definition of “public place” (S. 150) is far too vague.

The most immediate incident that prompts this call for amendment of the Criminal Code is a raid conducted in Hamilton, Ontario on August 3, 2004 on the Warehouse, a gay bathhouse. Two men were charged with committing an indecent act by police during a raid that was conducted by a multi-agency task force to ostensibly check for bylaw infractions (health, safety, smoking, etc.). Witnesses to the raid have indicated that the police used unnecessary force in arresting the two men charged with indecency, and unnecessarily handcuffed them during the arrest. The men were allegedly required to remove the towels they were wearing and to be assisted with changing into their clothes by female officers involved with the raid.

The raid in Hamilton is just one of number of recent examples of the need to repeal vague and antiquated laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity. The allegations about the conduct of the police during the raid are reminiscent of a raid by Toronto police on the Pussy Palace (2000), a women’s bathhouse event in which male police officers observed women in various stages of undress. In that case, police laid “disorderly conduct” and other charges under liquor licence legislation. A court later found that the police had violated the women’s right to privacy.

Although bawdy-house charges have not been laid in the Hamilton case, such charges are usually laid after raids on bathhouses. And there is a long history of the indecent act section of the Criminal Code being used almost exclusively against gays engaging in consensual sexual activity. Calgary police used the bawdy-house laws to charge the owners and customers of Goliath’s bathhouse in Calgary in December 2002. Bawdy-house and indecent act charges were laid by Montreal police during a raid on Taboo, a gay strip club in Montreal in May 2003. In Toronto, police laid bawdy-house charges in a raid on Remington’s, a gay strip club (1996) and indecent act charges against men during raids on the Bijou, a gay porno bar (1999).

Consensual heterosexual sex is also targeted by police forces. Police in various Ontario cities periodically raid heterosexual body rub parlours and strip clubs. Private clubs for heterosexual swingers in Montreal have been raided and charges successfully prosecuted under the bawdy-house laws. The Quebec Court of Appeal has rendered conflicting judgments in two of those cases, finding in one that a sex club was a bawdy-house but ruling in another case that a sex club was not a bawdy-house. And Terri-Jean Bedford was found guilty of operating a bawdy-house in Thornhill following a 1994 police raid on her house, where paying customers engaged in consensual S-M, fetish and bondage fantasies.

None of the activities that resulted in charges and convictions in these various cases should be viewed by modern-day standards as being criminal activities requiring the full force of the police and criminal law. Laws first enacted more than a century ago when moral values were quite different than they are today must not continue to regulate morality, and to make criminals of persons engaging in consensual sexual activity. They are laws that are laden with moral judgements, used by police to lay charges in circumstances where there are no victims. In fact, the people harmed by the continued existence and use of these Criminal Code sections are those who are charged with offences. Such laws should have no place in an age when we are governed by the rights afforded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We therefore call on you to bring in legislation to repeal these sections of the Criminal Code.

We look forward to receiving your response to our call that the indecent act and common bawdy- house provisions of the Criminal Code be repealed.

Yours sincerely,

Richard L. Hudler
For the Sex Laws Committee