During the 2007 Ontario provincial election, ask the candidates who want your vote where they stand on these issues

No tax funding for faith-based schools

The Progressive Conservative Party proposes to provide tax funding for non-Catholic faith-based schools. They say it’s an issue of fairness and will help to integrate Ontario’s increasingly diverse student population into the mainstream. We say it will provide tax money, including the taxes paid by queer people in Ontario, to finance the perpetuation of homophobia by schools controlled by the religious right. Many of the denominations that run faith-based schools view homosexuality as sinful, evil and abnormal and promote life-long celibacy for queer people who refuse to be cured. It’s bad enough that tax funding is already provided to Catholic schools, when Catholicism also promotes these views. Fairness does not require that more tax money be provided to promote homophobia and intolerance. Fairness requires that no tax funding of any amount be provided to faith-based schools, whether Catholic, other Christian denominations or other faiths.

More proactive measures to eliminate homophobia and create queer-positive environments in all schools

The provincial government must make it a priority of the Ministry of Education to ensure that all schools are free from homophobia – whether expressed in attitudes and beliefs, systemic biases or as acts of harassment and violence – and are safe and welcoming for queer students, teachers and staff. School safety and anti-violence programs must specifically include anti-homophobia and anti-transphobia initiatives. There must be a requirement for ensuring mandatory responses to reported incidents of harassment and violence and effective provisions for enforcement and disciplinary action. School equity policies and programs that specifically prohibit the inequitable treatment of queer students, teachers and staff must be mandatory and must include effective measures for monitoring and ensuring compliance.

Reinstate sex reassignment surgery for coverage under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan

Ontario Health Insurance Plan coverage for sex reassignment surgery was eliminated in 1998 under the former Progressive Conservative government and has not been reinstated under the Liberals. As a result, a fundamental health need is inaccessible to a majority of trans people who seek to have sex reassignment surgery because of prohibitive costs. The Ontario government must publicly fund sex reassignment surgery and related medical procedures, including access to hormones, electrolysis, and counseling, and whenever possible, ensure that these services are delivered in community-based settings.

Amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to include gender identity as a prohibited ground of discrimination

Trans people in Ontario have no explicit legislative human rights protections. In 2000, the Ontario Human Rights Commission recommended the inclusion of gender identity in the Ontario Human Rights Code to ensure that trans people have the same protections in respect of employment, housing and access to services as do other Ontarians. The failure of the Government of Ontario to act on this recommendation is unacceptable. The next government must commit to immediately amending the Code to include gender identity.

CLGRO Sex Laws Committee Statement on Antiquated Criminal Code Sections

Stop the Raids – Repeal the Laws

The recent raid by Hamilton police and other agencies on the Warehouse, a gay bathhouse, is yet another example of the need to repeal vague and antiquated Victorian-era laws that criminalize consensual sexual activity, says The Sex Laws Committee. The Committee is a Toronto-based group of organizations and individuals committed to changing Canada’s archaic laws relating to sex and sexuality. The Committee has called for dropping of indecency charges laid during the raid and an apology for the conduct of the police officers conducting the raid.

The raid was conducted as part of a sweep of 14 businesses. It included raids on three of the six businesses in Hamilton that are exclusively gay or have a significant gay clientele. Apparently, a multi-agency task force that involved the police conducted the raids to check for bylaw infractions (health, safety, smoking, etc.) and any Criminal Code violations. Two men were charged with committing an indecent act when police officers encountered them in the TV lounge at the Warehouse.

Hamilton’s queer community has responded with shock and concern over the raid. 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. It was reported that the handcuffed men were required to remove the towels they were wearing and had to be assisted with changing into their clothes by female officers involved with the raid. This is reminiscent of a raid in 2000 by Toronto police on the Pussy Palace, 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. 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.

The Committee calls on Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler to bring in legislation to repeal the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with indecent acts in a public place and common bawdy-houses. Consensual sex is not indecent, and the places in which it occurs are not “bawdy”. These are laws and words that are laden with moral judgements. The only people harmed are those who are charged. (The relevant sections of the Criminal Code are reproduced below.)

It is outrageous that these ancient and vague laws continue to dictate what is moral by criminalizing consenting sexual activity. The raids must stop and the laws must be repealed.

The Sex Laws Committee, Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario

Criminal Code Sections Dealing With Indecent Acts And Bawdy-Houses

Public place

S. 150 “public place” includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

Indecent acts

S. 173. (1) Every person who willfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place, with the intent thereby to insult or offend any person, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Common bawdy-house

S. 197. (1) “common bawdy-house” means a place that is (a) kept or occupied, or resorted to by one or more persons for the purpose of prostitution or the practice of acts of indecency.

Keeping common bawdy-house

S. 210. (1) Every one who keeps a common bawdy-house is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Every one who is an inmate of a common bawdy-house, is found, without lawful excuse, in a common-bawdy house, or as owner, landlord, lessor, tenant, occupier, agent or otherwise having charge or control of any place, knowingly permits the place or any part thereof to be let or used for the purposes of a common bawdy-house, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court shall cause a notice of the conviction to be served on the owner, landlord or lessor of the place in respect of which the person is convicted or his agent, and the notice shall contain a statement to the effect that it is being served pursuant to this section.

Where a person on whom notice is served under subsection (3) fails forthwith to exercise any right he may have to determine the tenancy or right of occupation of the person so convicted, and thereafter any person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) in respect of the same premises, the person on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to have committed an offence under subsection (1) unless he proves that he has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the recurrence of the offence.

Transporting persons to a bawdy-house

S. 211 Every person who knowingly takes, transports, directs, or offers to take, transport or direct, any person to a common bawdy-house is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Submission to the Senate Regarding Bill C-2: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to Make Consequential Amendments to Other Acts, Part 2 – Increasing the Age of Consent (Clauses 13-14; 54; 58; 62)(38)

Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario

February 2008

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) is an organization composed of groups and individuals who are committed to working towards feminism and bisexual, lesbian, and gay liberation by engaging in public struggle for full human rights, by promoting diversity and access, and by strengthening cooperative networks for lesbian, gay, and bisexual activism.

CLGRO is a coalition of some 20 groups and hundreds of individual members in all parts of the province. Founded early in 1975, CLGRO has concentrated its efforts in the areas of grassroots organizing, public education, and governmental lobbying.

Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario
Office: 519 Church St. Toronto Ontario M4Y 2C9
Mailing address: Box 822, Station A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1G3
Telephone: (416) 405-8253
Web: www.web.ca/clgro
Email: clgro@web.ca

Introduction

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) believes that the proposed new provisions of the Criminal Code that would be established upon the enactment of Part 2 of Bill C-2 would not, as is contended by the government, protect young people from sexual exploitation. Rather, they would serve only to criminalize certain sexual relations engaged in by young people with older persons, to which the young persons have consented, by deeming that the young persons are incapable of providing consent. This would be true even in situations where the young person and the older person are in a conjugal relationship to which both have consented unless they are expecting a child or are common-law partners. Even then the accused must not be in a relationship of dependency. It is quite common for one of two people in a common-law or conjugal relationship to have one working and supporting the other, particularly if one is pregnant; making this aspect of the law most destructive of an otherwise legal family unit.

The exception made to allow young people to marry even when one is under the age of 16 and the other is more than five years older is inconsistent with the assumption of this legislation that people under the age of 16 are incapable of making a decision to enter a sexual relationship with someone more than five years older. It also prods young people into entering a marital relationship before they may themselves choose to do so or which may not be the type of relationship they wish to enter. As well, such a provision provides a privileged status to marriage, discriminating against other types of relationships.

The proposed amendments would strip younger people of an important right to sexual self-determination and expression, with the state dictating that they could not willingly and freely enter into consenting sexual relationships with any person who is more than five years older. Part 2 of Bill C-2 is unnecessary and dangerous legislation that should not be enacted.

Like all reasonable adults in Canadian society, lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals believe that children are vulnerable beings in need of protection until they can think for themselves and weigh up the consequences of their actions. We believe, like most reasonable people, that education serves the purpose of helping children and young people, as they mature, make responsible, adult decisions that will not harm themselves or others.

Indeed, a good deal of the activist energy that we expend has gone, in the last 30 years into making sure that there are legal and social protections for the children we parent and those we know to be growing up gay, to make sure that they are not harmed by a homophobic world.

We believe that children and young people learn by knowing about their lives and the lives of others and that schools need to make sure they are aware of the many differing lives and lifestyles Canadians live and of the tolerance we Canadians believe in and which is mandated by our federal and provincial human rights legislation. To this end, we believe that a consistent and reasoned approach is needed to the laws regulating what can and cannot be learned or experienced by those deemed by the law to be “children” and “young persons.”

There is no reason to believe the police and courts will suddenly become less homophobic or that serious attempts will be made to educate and empower children and youth in the area of sexuality. Officials and parents are unlikely to encourage the autonomy of lesbian, gay, and bisexual teens in the free expression of their sexuality; however many studies show that lesbian, gay, and bisexual teens struggle for self-esteem and are at higher risk for suicide attempts and suicide. We also know from bitter experience that purported child-protection legislation such as the Criminal Codeamendments contained in Part 2 of Bill C-2 can be used to attack gays, bisexuals, and lesbians by reinforcing the myth that we prey on children and youth.

We further believe it is likely that the amendments contained in Part 2 of Bill C-2 will be used to deny young people sex education in the schools. This would diminish their understanding and control of their own sexual feelings and actions as well as making them more vulnerable to risks such as the exploitation the bill seeks to prevent, as well as health risks (including sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy).

We believe that Part 2 of Bill C-2’s intent to “protect” young persons from consensual sex is part of a broader agenda promoted by a number of social conservative advocacy groups committed to re-asserting religious and moral values in Canada’s laws and public policy by using the institutions of the State to stringently regulate sexual morality. These groups are opposed to abortion and funding of abortion services, sex education in schools, safe sex education, presentations of homosexuality or same-sex relationships that conflict with their moral beliefs, liberal divorce laws, legal recognition of common-law relationships and all measures to establish legal equality or recognition for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people. Many of the groups who have been pressing most strongly for an increase in the age of consent believe that young persons should abstain from sex and that the state, public institutions and the school system should promote chastity. Some have expressed the desire to have the age of consent increased even further, to 18 years if possible.

In reality, the Criminal Code amendments proposed in Part 2 of Bill C-2 will neither protect young persons from abuse nor help them deal with consensual sex as part – we hope a pleasant part – of their lives. The amendments simply appeal to the agenda of the various social conservative groups who view all sex outside of marriage as immoral, the fears and paranoia of overly protective parents and the revulsion and squeamishness that many people feel about so-called intergenerational sexual relationships.

Vulnerability of children and youth

The Criminal Code already contains many provisions that address the vulnerability of children and youth to sexual exploitation and coercion. Among these are S. 153.(1), most recently amended as a result of Bill C-2 adopted by the 38th parliament. It created a new offence against the sexual exploitation of youth under 18 years where the relationship is exploitative of the young person, as evidenced by the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including the age of the young person, the difference in age between the youth and the other person, how the relationship evolved, and the degree of control or influence exercised over the young person. This provision already protects youth and increasing the age of consent to 16 years is unnecessary.

The provisions of Part 2 of Bill C-2 also contrast vividly with the legal status of young persons under other laws or other sections of the Criminal Code. Young persons who are 14 years of age or older and who are convicted of criminal offences may be sentenced to adult terms and imprisoned for committing serious criminal offences (including murder or aggravated sexual assault). Yet, under the Criminal Code amendments contained in Part 2 of Bill C-2, they would not be deemed to have consented to certain sexual activities or relationships because they would be deemed not to have the capacity to legally give consent.

We accept that there is a stated need in our society to identify a chronological age that roughly equates with the capacity to give consent. Unfortunately, the amendments contained in Part 2 of Bill C-2 will create more instances in which consenting sexual relations between a person between the ages of 14 and 16 and someone over that age are criminalized. The result will be infringement of the human rights of both parties and, in particular, the right of young persons to express their sexuality.

We believe that the age of consent, generally stated as 14 years, should not be increased. We also believe the age of consent should be consistent within the various provisions of the Criminal Code. In that regard, Part 2 of Bill C-2 is deficient because it leaves unchanged the provisions of s. 159(1) of the Criminal Code that establishes an unequal age of consent for anal intercourse (18 years) that is higher than either the current age of consent for other sexual acts (14 years) or that would be established for such other acts (16 years).

Unequal enforcement of the Criminal Code

There is already widespread concern within lesbian, gay and bisexual communities about the enforcement of the current provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with sexual relations. There is unequal enforcement of the law, with gay and lesbian sex being disproportionately targeted or being seen as a more serious matter warranting more severe punishment than sexual relations involving members of the opposite sex. Our experiences are that a perception of harm is more likely when the persons involved are of the same sex, just because of the stigma attached to homosexuality. Parents are often, more unhappy about their children having sex with someone of the same sex than with someone of the opposite sex, and are far more likely to call the police. The police are often more lenient and inclined to view sex as merely “sowing wild oats” or “natural and healthy exploration” when it involves opposite-sex persons, and more vigorous in laying charges and inclined to see a sexual relationship as “corrupting morals” when it involves persons of the same sex. The proposed amendments to Part 2 of Bill C-2, in our view, will make this discriminatory situation very much worse.

The difference in age exemption

The government claims that a new five-year peer group exemption will protect relationships between youth from being prosecuted under this proposed law. However the exemption contained in Part 2 of Bill C-2 is so restrictive that it would apply to few of these relationships. Since the exemption does not apply to relationships of dependence, the law would criminalize an 18 year-old with an income who supports a 15-year old partner. In addition the ‘peer group’ exemption displays common misconceptions about sexual abuse – that it is just an age difference that constitutes a power indifference and that youth do not have the capacity to consent to sexual relationships with older adults.

CLGRO believes that it is a good thing to increase a person’s ability to consent, and to maximize young people’s confidence and ability to withhold consent. Doing so empowers youth, increases the autonomy and affirms their sexuality and sense of self.

If the government is serious about protecting youth, then regardless of whether the age of consent is raised, it will empower youth by giving them the tools they need to make informed choices. We should help youth to develop confidence, communication skills, to negotiate their sexual lives and prevent abuses of power. Such youth are not only more able to make informed choices about whether to have sex, but if they do choose to have sex, they are more likely to be safe.

CLGRO also is concerned that Criminal Code changes set out in Part 2 of Bill C-2 legislation will have a chilling effect on service providers who counsel youth about sexual issues, and will impede their ability to provide such services because of a fear that to counsel young persons under 16 years of age about sexual matters will be illegal. This may make it difficult for youth to get access to sexual health counseling such as HIV prevention and to information on safe sex practices.

Conclusion

Clearly children need to be protected from harmful experiences, but we are worried by the notion that seems to underlie much of the dialogue accompanying Part 2 of Bill C-2 that consensual sex itself is a harmful experience from which young people need to be protected. Sex is a normal and natural part of life that young people need to know about, to be able to assess, and then, we hope, to safely enjoy. We see education and discussion as the best means to bring this about and, since parents cannot be relied on to provide that education, we think it should happen in the education system. Criminalizing consensual sexual activity engaged in by young persons with older persons will not protect the younger person; it will only infringe the human rights of both parties and, in particular, the right of young persons to express their sexuality.

CLGRO believes that the age of consent should not be increased. We call for Part 2 of Bill C-2 to be withdrawn or, if it is not withdrawn, that the opposition parties vote against in parliament so that it is not enacted. We also call for a new bill to be introduced that would establish the age of consent for anal intercourse at 14 years of age, to make it uniform with the current age of consent for other sexual acts.

When “Project Kiddy Porn Ring” Comes to Your Area

This leaflet contains information to help lesbian, gay, and bisexual groups cope with massive attacks on youth and men in their communities, conducted under the guise of enforcing child pornography laws.

Youth Pornography Projects

Background

The significance of gay pornography for gay men is a complicated issue which serves as a divisive force both within and outside the lesbian, bisexual and gay communities. The resulting confusion provides a window of vulnerability through which forces wishing to maintain and strengthen the oppression of bisexual, lesbian, and gay people are able to weaken the cause of gay, lesbian, and bisexual liberation. For information about a similar campaign against our communities see the leaflet Washroom and Park Arrests.

In 1993 Parliament passed Bill C-128 (now Criminal Code section 163.1), ostensibly to protect children from exploitation through child pornography. As with most legislation promoting censorship of pornography, the first target for criminal charges is members of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities. Likewise, using child protection legislation to attack homosexuals reinforces the myth that we are a threat to children and draws attention away from the real threat to children and women, namely the system of patriarchy often referred to by the phrase “traditional family values.”

Not long after the legislation was passed, London, Ontario police “discovered” videotapes containing what they described as child pornography. The media were informed that this was part of a huge child pornography ring involving very young children and expanding beyond the limits of the city of London. To prove their point numerous arrests followed of men reported by the children identified in the videos. Furthermore, there were soon similar discoveries of tapes in British Columbia and Stratford, Ontario. With a subsequent discovery of more videotapes in London, the police asked for and were granted additional funding to pay for this investigation.

What the police neglected to say was that very few of their charges were for pornography and the vast majority of the “children” were over the legal age of consent, namely age 14. They allowed the impression to stand that the youths were both male and female, when in fact they were only male, and they did not bother to point out that none of the tapes confiscated in the subsequent discovery contained child pornography.

Motivation

It is always dangerous to try to ascribe a motivation for the behaviour of the police. However, it can be noted that the police were able to get extra funding as a result of this action. Targeting of the gay community was evident from the fact that similar cases involving heterosexual charges were treated differently. Manipulation of the media was exposed by the fact that cases and tapes not involving child pornography were still noted in press releases under the heading “Child Pornography Investigation”. Career ambitions of police leaders became apparent from subsequent job applications. And this highly publicized investigation took place in the middle of a political push on the part of the lesbian and gay communities for equal rights and responsibilities.

Repercussions

Although the media had started to become more sensitive about publishing the names of men caught in washroom and park arrests, this was not the case with cases connected with child pornography. The guilt or innocence of the men charged, therefore, became irrelevant once their names were published in the newspaper and many were encouraged to plead guilty just to get it over, with as light a sentence as possible, and to save the “children” (actually usually teenage hustlers) the trauma of having to testify. The men were not told that some of the charges (notably the anal intercourse charges) to which they were pleading guilty were under constitutional review. Furthermore, charges dropped in plea bargaining were still considered by the judge in sentencing and were often the most damaging charges which the defendants were most prepared to fight as false charges.

The repercussions, therefore, were: men were tried and found guilty in the media before ever going to court; they were given unusually severe sentences despite plea bargaining; false credence was given to the mythology promoted by the police.

What Happens

As well as making certain aspects of pornography illegal, the youth pornography legislation increases the ability of police to use surveillance, search and seizure tactics. The discovery of even a small amount of porn containing images of individuals appearing or pretending to be under the age of 18 unleashes the ability of the police to undertake a major campaign of harassment, particularly against gay men and youth. If they locate home-made images and are able to identify the participants, they are then able to intimidate those individuals, often teen hustlers, into identifying other adults with whom they have had contact. This opens up the possibility of laying charges unrelated to child pornography, such as attempting to obtain for a consideration the sexual services of a person under the age of 18.

Even when there is no home-made porn available, police are able to confiscate address books, photo albums, and diaries and use these to identify others who may be considered suspects because of their sexual orientation. Subsequent visits to the homes are incredibly intimidating even if no charges are laid and the fall-out of terror in the community drives people back into the oppressive closets. The police then widely publicize their findings and charges as part of a huge child porn ring in the area, creating sensational media coverage.

Action

It is extremely important to alert the media that it is being manipulated by the police. A media release should be submitted outlining concerns of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual communities and containing the suggestions for media printed below.

If your group distributes a newsletter, an article containing information about the arrests and what to do if the police want to talk to members would be helpful.

Notify CLGRO about what is going on. If possible set up a courtwatch and support system for the people involved.

Suggestions for Media

On Handling Alleged Sex “Crime” Involving Youths and Men

These guidelines are adapted from a document prepared by The Boston/Boise Committee during the 1978 Boston sex scandal which “sought to mobilize prejudice against gay rights by depicting all gay men as child molesters and kiddie pornographers.”

The following media safeguards would protect defendant and witness rights:

• not publishing the names, addresses, or exact employment of the accused;
• not emphasizing personal data that has no proven relationship to the crime;
• not publishing photographs of the accused;
• not publishing police leaks or other unproven statements about impending arrests of unnamed men;
• recognizing “tip-of-the-iceberg” comments by police or crown attorneys as fear-mongering that affects the rights of all gay men, especially professionals involved legitimately with teenagers in their work or personal lives;
• not describing witnesses in any way by which they can be identified by their peers.

Suggested approaches to investigating, reporting, or publishing cases involving pornography and prostitution:

• asking direct and probing questions of police, lawyers, and elected officials involved in the case, remembering that these people sometimes depend on sensationalism (including charges later modified or dropped for unsubstantiated evidence) to get media coverage and public approval;
• asking the police how the witnesses were located, how their “complaints” were generated, whether the witnesses themselves have been charged or threatened with charges, and whether they have been provided with neutral legal counsel;
• not linking dissimilar crimes simply because they are announced as part of the same investigation, and perpetuating guilt by association;
• being sensitive to the tremendous fear of homosexuality in our society and not pandering to it any more than to racism or other prejudices;
• remembering that “communicating” and other prostitution-related offenses result in vigorous prosecutions of women, while their customers usually go free (and unnamed), whereas the opposite is often the case among men and boys, where the client is prosecuted and the prostitute is coerced into giving testimony;
• checking diverse sources (including court documents which provide precise charges against the accused) to verify charges have merit and contacting sources such as accused men or their lawyers for their reaction;
• giving equal space and prominence to stories that deal with alleged police harassment, mishandling of cases, and evidence of innocence;
• giving equal prominence to stories that reveal serious errors in previously reported investigations or when previously reported charges have been retracted.

Suggestions for Targeted Citizens

These guidelines are taken from the Right To Privacy Committee’s newsletter Action! vol. 3, no. 3.

When Talking to the Police

1. Be polite.
2. You have the right to remain silent. To avoid problems, we suggest giving name, address, and where you’re going, if asked.
3. You don’t have to go anywhere with a police officer unless under arrest or for a breathalyser test.
4. If you are the driver of a car, produce your driver’s licence, insurance ownership, and give details of any accident.

If Arrested

1. Give your correct name. Don’t resist.
2. The Charter of Rights requires the police to tell you promptly why you are under arrest.
3. You have the right to call a lawyer.
4. Remember: anything you say may be used against you in court – and probably will.

After Arrest

1. Note names, badge numbers, licence numbers, car numbers of police officers and witnesses.
2. Write out a complete account of the incident as soon as possible under the heading “For my lawyer only.”
3. If you need assistance, or feel you have been treated inappropriately, contact your local gay/lesbian group.

Prepared by CLGRO, May 1998.

Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual LIBERATION in the 2000’s

1. How We See It

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) is a liberation-based group. We recognize and support the seeking of equality as a means toward gaining liberation. It was a major and constructive part of our work toward getting into the Ontario Human Rights Code, which makes it easier for people to come out and helps to create a level playing field for other work to be done. For us, seeking equality is a means to an end, not the end itself. Once the issue of same-sex marriage is resolved in our favour, it seems that in Canada we have accomplished as much as we can by using this strategy. It is necessary to look at what the next steps toward liberation will be.

Many lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (maybe even the majority) see acquiring equality as a sufficient end in itself. They feel they will be satisfied being able to assimilate into the general society as it currently exists. We call this “assimilation- seeking,” as opposed to “liberation-seeking.” Society in general would feel less threatened by lesbians, gays, and bisexuals who want to be like everybody else than by lesbians, gays, and bisexuals who want to change society.

Changing the existing laws to make us equal will not change the attitude of society in general toward us, although it can be argued that, over a period of coexistence, attitudes will evolve. Laws and other rules of society are set up on basic assumptions which also need to be changed if liberation is to be accomplished. For that reason we adopted the tactic of seeking equality first but, instead of settling for assimilation, moved on toward making other changes.

The concepts of power and control underlie the laws, rules, and assumptions used to regulate society and create social norms. Liberation challenges the authority of social norms and socialization. Those who have power and control (heterosexual, white, middleclass, male) want to keep it and use institutions (churches, schools, governments) to enforce their position. Challenging the way things are (the status quo) threatens the privilege of those who have power and control and is bound to be met with resistance.

Those who have power and control fear that giving power to others will weaken their control over them, undermine privilege, and may even result in them becoming controlled themselves. It can be assumed that, once lesbians, gays, and bisexuals achieve equality, they will be divided into good lesbians, gays, and bisexuals and bad lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, the “good” ones assimilating into the status quo and joining in the resistance against the “bad” ones seeking liberation through change. Looking at those next steps toward change and liberation is the purpose of this document.

2. Who Do You Think You Are?

Labels are used to classify people and put them into categories. These categories can then be given a position in a hierarchy and used as a means of control. The labels also tend to be internalized by people and used for self-oppression. There is a danger of the labelled groups becoming scapegoats.

When lesbians, gays and bisexuals secure equal rights and become assimilated they cease to exist as lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. They lose their identity and the labels put on them. People often value their identity and should be free to choose the identity they want without discrimination, but they should not have to choose an identity or have an identity forced upon them. Self-esteem, wholeness, and health only come if we are at one with ourselves and not strait-jacketed by a label.

The individual should be recognized as the basic unit in society. The minute the individual is lumped into a family, a racial group, a sexual group, a religious group (and the lists go on), they have labels attached to them and are subject to being put into categories to be controlled.

People need to believe that we have some control over our own lives, not that we are controlled by others. We need to believe that our actions affect our lives and to act accordingly. This gives us the ability to determine our own identity and the power to resist coercion. Labels are valuable when they reflect the reality we define for ourselves but not if they become straitjackets or tell us how to behave.

To exercise influence over our environment, we need to see groups as a potential source of power and control which we can use to supplement our internal resources, rather than as something to which we must give up our personal resources.

Laws should be in place to protect the individual from being controlled by others who are more powerful. They should not be there to force individuals to conform to some arbitrary rules set up by those who are more powerful.

3. What Do We Want?

One main project of liberation is to identify and change the laws and social rules that focus on controlling people rather than giving control to the individual.

For example, the current laws about marriage should be changed so that it is the individual (rather than the state) that determines the nature of the personal relationships we enter.

This would create a good transition point between the old strategy of equality (which would simply assimilate partners of the same sex into the same structured, hierarchal, marital system of heterosexuals) and liberation, where people would be free to define for themselves the nature of their relationships.

Some other areas where rules need to be reviewed and changed are:

• the education system at all levels of education (including the need and right of students to be aware of the choices available to them and their right to make their own informed choices);
• the health system (including anti-homophobia training for staff, research on the needs of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals that are different from those of heterosexual);
• the welfare system: this should include a guaranteed basic income which does not label, punish or stigmatize individuals, and provides them with security to take chances;
• policing (law officers need to understand the differences in our lives and our communities we live in, especially where straight and gay behaviours differ;
• oppressive laws to do with sex (bawdy house laws, porn laws, censorship laws);
• employment laws and practices (employment equity, ending discrimination in the workplace, people from all classes have a chance at income and promotion); people should not be seen as part of an assembly line;
• protecting the interests and rights of those who are in a minority or, as in the case of women, in a less privileged position; building the confidence of the underprivileged and their impact on society;
• separation of church and state so that laws and morals are not driven by the beliefs of religious communities (even on those occasions when they agree!).

When equal treatment is applied across the board, it does not affect people equally (“differential impact”) – unless the people are all the same.

So we need to find out exactly what is needed by those who are not in positions of power in society. Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals must be able to speak out and “tell it like it is.”

For this to happen, we need an end to prejudice so that we do not suffer for telling our stories. Then we need to be heard and encouraged to participate in shaping the structures of society that affect us.

You can help! Look critically at what you’re told is normal. Think whether it makes sense to you. Look at laws, rules, and conventions to see who they benefit. Speak out when you hear prejudice and discrimination. Listen to what people tell you about the lives they live – and tell them about yours!

Pamphlet prepared by CLGRO, November 2004

Washroom And Park Arrests

Purpose:

This information sheet will help lesbian, gay, and bisexual groups cope with washroom and park arrests in their communities.

Background:

Public parks and washrooms have long been popular meeting places for gay men, since well before gay liberation, and before gay bars, clubs, and more developed social networks were available as viable alternatives. The risks were considerable – both from thugs looking to assault and rob gay men who were unlikely to press charges because they feared exposure of their sexual orientation, and from the police seeking to locate and prosecute homosexuals.

Homophobia, the prejudice against homosexuals, continues to be a factor leading men to seek out meeting places more anonymous than gay clubs and organizations. Most of the men arrested in washrooms and parks do not identify themselves as gay, are in heterosexual marriages, and are very closeted in terms of acknowledging their homosexual feelings. Because the men are not known to the gay/lesbian organizations, the police are able to make a number of arrests without the gay and lesbian communities being aware that the arrests are being made. The community is then taken by surprise when the police make announcements to the media.

Repercussions:

For the people arrested, the repercussions are devastating. Generally, they plead guilty and pay a fine, plus pay a lawyer, and hope that it will be kept quiet. In recent years, newspapers and the police have been better about not publicizing names; however, anyone interested can look at court dockets and get the names that way.

If information about the arrests gets out, the men arrested may suffer broken homes, and loss of their jobs, as well as social isolation. Even if the arrest is kept quiet, the anxiety experienced by the men is enormous, and there have been a number of suicides. Also, men who have been convicted will then have a criminal record and run the risk of having that exposed if they attempt to cross an international border or are arrested again.

For the police, the repercussions are advantageous. By increasing their arrest and conviction statistics, they gain financial and public support. Since most of the men arrested do not fight the cases, these are easy arrests and convictions.

For the most part, the gay community suffers adverse publicity, and it has been noted that incidents of “gay bashing” seem to increase after publication of mass arrests. Attempts can be made to turn the publicity to advantage by using the exposure to bring up other issues, but this is difficult. Also, the issue of washroom arrests is a very divisive one within the lesbian and gay communities.

What Happens:

Washroom arrests usually follow extensive video surveillance, in which the police use expensive equipment supplied by the Ontario Police Commission to observe activity in washrooms. Often police hide outside washrooms and observe activity through two-way mirrors or through air vents. The police usually claim that the surveillance results from a complaint, but since they do not have to provide evidence of the complaint, it is possible that police undertake the activity for their own reasons.

Park arrests usually result from police activity very close to, if not actually, entrapment. The arrests are often for “communicating for the purposes of prostitution,” when a police officer may behave in such a way as to encourage someone to ask a price or to offer money for sexual favours. Arrests have also been made for indecent assault when a policeman behaves provocatively and then arrests someone who touches him. Usually, there is another policeman nearby, sometimes in hiding, who can act as a witness – this makes it very difficult for the arrested man to defend himself in court.

Police also hide in parks, or undercover police may follow men around, until they are able to catch them in an act the police feel justified in calling “indecent.” Entrapment-type techniques have been known to take place in public washrooms, for example, when a policeman stands at a urinal acting provocatively until another man makes a sexual gesture.

Usually the arrests occur at the time of the incident, but police have been known to send letters to men or to visit them in their homes after several months’ surveillance. Generally the police will wait until they have a number of arrests before making the arrests public.

Actions:

Often the arrests will first come to the attention of a gay group when someone who has been arrested phones the gayline anonymously to ask what he should do and to get the names of gay-positive lawyers. A list of lawyers should be at hand to give to these callers right away, because it is unlikely they will give their names so they can be called back, and it is entirely possible that they will be too frightened to call back themselves.

It is very helpful for men arrested for the first time to talk with someone who has been through the experience, so if the gayline has someone who is willing to provide this kind of peer counselling, that name and/or phone number could be given to the caller. Callers should also immediately be given the names and addresses of alternative meeting places, such as clubs, baths, and social groups, to give them the opportunity to meet people without taking the risk of being arrested.

Support groups for men who have been arrested would be very helpful, but they are difficult to establish because of the extreme anxiety of the men and their desire for anonymity. Counselling and/or counselling resources should be offered to the men, in case they suffer break-up of family, loss of job, etc., as a result of the arrest.

The men should also be told that a plea of “guilty” will result in a criminal record – many are not aware of this. These are very difficult cases to fight in court, both because of lack of cooperation on part of the men arrested and because the men are usually alone, whereas the police will often have a witness. It is helpful if a lawyer familiar with these cases can speak with the group.

If a group receives any calls about arrests, it can be assumed that many other arrests have also been made which no callers have reported. It can also be assumed, therefore, that the police will soon make a public announcement of the arrests. When calls are received, the phoneline counsellor/group should try to find out where the arrests are taking place and publish a warning in the organization’s newsletter or on bulletin boards. It might also be helpful to publish advice on what to do in case of an arrest (see the end of this document).

Although it is best not to antagonize the police, there is no harm in trying to meet with them and discuss alternatives to arrests, such as the posting of signs warning that the area is subject to surveillance and/or random patrols by uniformed police officers or security guards.

If your group has resources and people with time, a courtwatch programme could be set up. This involves people with some basic knowledge of legal procedures spending time in the courts, watching the dockets. When cases come up involving washroom and park arrests, the courtwatcher can advise the defendant of resources available to him and procedures he will likely encounter. By observing cases, the courtwatch person can gain knowledge on how the cases are being treated and can help develop strategies to fight the cases.

The Media:

The media usually respond to park and washroom arrests with enthusiasm, and it is likely that representatives from local lesbian/gay groups will be asked to comment. It is best to be prepared in advance, because either defending the activity or condemning it will draw criticism from inside and outside the lesbian and gay communities.

Media attention can, however, be used as an opportunity to describe the kinds of pressure lesbians and gay men face in our homophobic society and to raise general public awareness about the issues surrounding sexual orientation and AIDS. This can also be an opportunity to increase public awareness of your organization and what it does.

If the police have refused to meet with you to discuss alternatives to park and washroom arrests, you can point out to the media that these methods of prevention have been successful and cost-efficient in other areas, and that you suspect the refusal of the police is based more on their desire to increase the number of arrests than an actual desire to discourage the activity.

You can also note the homophobic and discriminatory nature of these arrests: if the police were to encounter the same kind of activity between heterosexuals on a lovers’ lane, they would simply ask the people to move along and would not arrest them. The repercussions for the people arrested should be highlighted, and it should be pointed out that the punishment does not fit the crime, particularly since this is a victimless crime (which might also provide the opportunity to point out that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than are heterosexuals). As well, police response here can be contrasted with police response to crimes such as violence against women, especially domestic violence, which tend to be treated lightly.

Written by: CLGRO – Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario
March 1991

When Talking With The Police *

1. Be polite.
2. You have the right to remain silent. To avoid problems, we suggest giving name, address, and where you’re going, if asked.
3. You don’t have to go anywhere with a police officer unless under arrest or for a breathalyzer test.
4. If you are the driver of a car, produce your driver’s licence, insurance ownership, and give details of any accident.

If Arrested:

1. Give your correct name. Don’t resist.
2. The Canadian Charter of Rights requires the police to tell you promptly why you are under arrest.
3. You have the right to call a lawyer.
4. Remember: anything you say may be used against you in court – and probably will.

After Arrest:

1. Note names, badge numbers, licence numbers, car numbers of police officers and witnesses.
2. Write out a complete account of the incident as soon as possible under the heading “For my lawyer only”.
3. If you need assistance, or feel you have been treated inappropriately, contact your local gay/lesbian/bisexual group.

* This guide “When Talking To The Police”, is taken from the Right To Privacy Committee’s newsletter Action! vol. 3, no. 3.

We Count! Including Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals in Employment Equity

Workplaces which leave lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees needing to hide our lifestyle, fearing reprisals if we come out, having to sit silent through homophobic comments and jokes – these are not work-places where the morale of workers is high.

Apart from the violation of human rights and dignity involved, these are not efficient, positive, or productive workplaces.

Homophobia is simply not in the best business interests.

From We Count, CLGRO’s 1991 employment equity brief

Employment equity: what is it?

Employment equity is a systematic approach to looking at the composition and treatment of the workforce and remedying some of the disadvantages that have led to unfair treatment of certain groups.

It falls into two main parts:

1. numerical representation: comparing the diversity of the workforce in a particular organization with the diversity of the local population and trying to ensure that they are comparable; and
2. workplace environment: making sure that policies and practices do not discriminate against particular groups.

What laws control employment equity?

Canada’s Employment Equity Act (1986) [and, at one time, Ontario’s Employment Equity Act (1994), repealed by the subsequent Conservative government].

Various other policies also demand employment equity. For example, the Federal Contractors Program (for organizations receiving large contracts from the federal government) has a mandatory employment equity component.

Both the acts specify four designated groups: women; people with disabilities; people of colour (“visible minorities”); and First Nations people (“aboriginal people”).

Disadvantaged Groups

Groups are said to be disadvantaged, for example, when:

• their pay is less than that of another group doing comparable work
• members of the group are hired in smaller numbers than their availability in the population warrants
• their rate of promotion is slower than that of other groups
• the workplace is not physically accessible
• their work opportunities are stereotyped
• they are harassed in the workplace

Why do gays want in?

At present, if gay people face discrimination in the workplace, we are covered under the Ontario Human Rights Code. We can take complaints to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. This underfunded and overworked body will take a couple of years to investigate and decide.

If we were covered under employment equity, the onus would be on the employer to provide a prejudice-free workplace, rather than on the individual who has already been discriminated-against to go through a laborious complaints process.

In fact, employment equity programs are a proactive attempt to realize the principles outlined in the Ontario Human Rights Code. The principles of the Code require that such programs be extended to include lesbians and gay men explicitly.

How do gays want in?

No one knows how many lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals there are in the population at large. Although the figure in most common usage is 10%, studies have estimated from 1-20%. All the studies have been criticized. In any case, there are always those in the workforce who are just coming out or who do not wish to come out. So it makes no sense for us to ask for numerical representation at present.

But it makes a great deal of sense for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals to be counted as a designated group for the purpose of workplace environment measures. Whenever systemic action is being taken against sexism, racism, and ableism, action against heterosexism and homophobia should be added.

For us, other measures would include:

• policy review to ensure that gays receive the same benefits (medical, dental, parental provisions etc.) as heterosexuals
• working to end harassment, from antigay cartoons pinned on the wall, through name-calling, to violence
• ensuring that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals can choose to be themselves at work without facing prejudice or losing career opportunities
• including sexual orientation issues in education and antiharassment programs
• providing a process to deal with antigay incidents in the workplace
• ensuring that criteria for hiring and promotion do not discriminate against people who choose to be openly gay

Why hasn’t it happened?

Myth 1: All gays are middle-class urban white men who suffer no disadvantage.

Fact: Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are to be found in all communities, big and small, urban and rural, in all races and classes, and at all income levels.

Myth 2: All lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals would be forced to come out (identify themselves as gay).

Fact: No one would be forced out. Equity data are confidential. We are not asking for “quotas.” In a prejudice-free workplace, coming out would be a free choice.

Some worry that we are asking for a slice of an already tiny pie. Either they feel certain minorities should continue to be unjustly treated so that things can be improved for some other groups or they feel that society can afford no more change. As we have seen above, none of the required changes cost much more than the effort required to rise above prejudice.

Government legislation is necessary to ensure the conditions needed to change workplaces for the better, as are

• topline management support, clearly expressed and publicised;
• the provision of resources to fight prejudice; and
• educational programs.

As citizens, taxpayers, and workers, lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men expect their elected leaders to demonstrate their leadership in this area.

Pamphlet prepared by CLGRO, June 1995

Are We Spouses Yet?

What difference has it made to same sex relationship recognition in Ontario?

What happened…

In October 1999, the Ontario government passed bill 5, An Act To Amend Certain Statutes as a Result of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in M v H.

M v H was a same-sex spousal case launched in 1992, when one woman sued another for support after the break-up of their relationship. The case worked its way up to the supreme court of Canada, which found that the Ontario Family Law Act, in not covering same-sex relationships, contravened the equality rights promised to all in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In their final judgement, May 1999, the supreme court gave the Ontario government six months to amend the act.

Ontario’s conservative government, anxious that heterosexuals would be offended if lesbians, gays, and bisexuals could think of themselves as spouses, created a separate category called “same-sex partners.” In an omnibus bill, they did however include same-sex partners in most of the provisions affecting heterosexual common-law spouses.

What it means – in short

It means that same-sex couples in Ontario have roughly the same status – rights and responsibilities – as heterosexual common-law couples in Ontario.

What does it really mean, though?

You have to be living with your partner to be entitled to most of these rights, and the relationship has to be 1-3 years old (depending on which provision you’re looking at).

So, if you are living in a same-sex relationship, you can:

• get spousal benefits from your employer
• have your same-sex partner qualify for benefits under life, automobile, and accident and sickness insurance policies
• have your same-sex partner qualify for pension benefits and benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act
• have a same-sex relationship recognized by health services, nursing homes, and homes for the aged.
• enter into a cohabitation agreement or a separation agreement permitting you and your same-sex partner to opt out of the spousal support obligations in the Family Law Act
• apply for support on breakup of the relationship
• apply for division of property on breakup of the relationship
• lose your welfare or disability cheque because you are assessed as part of a couple rather than as an individual
• find your welfare income is reduced, if you are both on welfare, because you are assessed as part of a couple rather than as separate individuals
• sort of adopt a child together:
• step-parent adoption is ok
• adopting as a couple, you would be in the same position as any two unrelated people seeking to adopt together (which they can); you would not be treated as a couple/family unit as a heterosexual couple would

You cannot:

• assume your property will go to your lover on your death; you must make a will; automatic inheritance is only for the married.

What about marriage?

Marriage is principally covered under federal laws, not provincial ones, so the situation is unchanged. Same-sex partners can get married in a church, have holy unions, commitment ceremonies, etc – this is not illegal and never was. But neither the federal nor the provincial government will yet recognize your relationship as existing in law.

What about income tax and old age pensions?

These are covered by federal legislation. Recently, parliament amended over 50 federal laws, including the Income Tax Act and the legislation governing federal old age pensions, to recognize same-sex couples on the same basis as common-law heterosexual couples.

Who is left out?

Anyone is left out of these provisions whose relationship does not fit into the mould prescribed by the government. For example, if you do not live in the same house or apartment as your spouse, you cannot go on their health benefits plan.

If you have a more extended family structure (many of us do, and many different cultures do), you cannot have it recognized. A person with more than one significant other, for instance. Or a child with more than two parents (for example, where a heterosexual marriage has broken up and one partner (or both) has a same-sex partner also.

Where can I go for legal advice?

In Toronto, check The Pink Pages , or ads in Xtra!, Siren, Fab for lawyers. Go to a lawyer with experience in the field.

Contact the Foundation for Equal Families at (416) 975-0024.

Contact EGALE by phone at 613-230-1043 or 888-204-7777 or via their contact form.

Outside Toronto, check GayCanada. Go to a lawyer with experience in the field.

Where can I read up on all this?

CLGRO has several publications you can view online:

• The Spousal Collection, changes in spousal rights 1989 – present, a 100-page document with Canadian and global news updates.
• CLGRO’s 1992 brief, Happy Families: the recognition of same-sex spousal relationships, which details the Ontario laws that needed changing
• CLGRO’s 1991 legal guide to relationships recognition, On Our Own Terms, documented how to protect your relationship prior to bill 5, still useful for information on the bits that haven’t changed, such as wills etc.

Pamphlet prepared by CLGRO, November 1999