human rights, civil liberties - Centrepiece 2001: Vol. 7 No. 1

Kristen Read is a third year University of Calgary Student majoring in Law and Society.

The Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Act (S.A. 1998 c. P-19.3 hereinafter "the PCIPA") was created based on a strong societal need to protect Alberta's children. Child prostitution is an unfortunate issue that often results from deeper and unsettling problems behind the doors of many family households. Children who engage in prostitution are victims of sexual abuse; consequently, the PCIPA's focus should be the safety and well-being of the children affected. A heated legal and moral debate occurred when the constitutionality of the PCIPA was challenged before the court system. Legislation, which seeks to protect the best interests of children, must also protect their rights. Moral objectives must be reinforced legally to ensure a solution to child prostitution.

As a society, we must look at the underlying issues regarding children who choose or are forced to live and work for their money on the streets. It is important to realize that intervention should be attempted in problematic family situations before a child resorts to a life on the streets. Family units must be strengthened and communities must support their fellow members. The question of why there are child prostitutes is hard to answer. In order to attempt to answer this question one must look at the background of the child who views the streets as a better option, or who is coerced onto the streets under the power of pimps. To some children, the streets give them a sense of belonging, which is lacking from their family home life. They reach out to other children who have similar experiences, and who are able to meet their emotional needs (Carolyn Barker. 1992. Juvenile Prostitution: A Socio-Political Analysis (unpublished MSW thesis, the University of Calgary), at page ii, hereinafter "Barker"). Many influences affect a child's decision to choose a life on the streets including poor family conditions and unhealthy relationships with their peers. Other influences include alcohol and drug abuse, coercion by those who influence the children, and broken homes (Barker, at 8, 9, 20, and 21). Usually the children come from a chaotic world. Their parents may take an authoritarian approach to parenting, or at the extreme opposite, are uninterested and unavailable to the emotional needs of their children (Barker, at 27). Children in these situations may have food, shelter and clothing; however, the emotional support and willingness of their parents to listen is not available. Children who end up on the streets as prostitutes often experience early sexual abuse by adults who are put in a position of trust or authority (Barker at 27).

Carolyn Barker suggested, in 1992, several the reasons for passing legislation regarding child prostitution: (1) to protect public health, (2) to prevent organized crime and other criminal elements, and (3) to legislate public morality and enforce that "prostitution was an inherently immoral behaviour." (Barker at 48). The focus in 2001 should be the protection of children, because child prostitutes are victims of sexual abuse. The best interests of the children must be taken into account. Their "inherently immoral behaviour" should not be focused upon. What should be focused on is what occurred in these young children's lives that made them turn to a life of sexual abuse on the streets.

The book Abandoned Children discusses how child prostitutes are "in limbo, denied their proper place in the family or society and deprived of a proper childhood" (Catherine Panter-Brick and M. Smith, Abandoned Children (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000 at page 1, hereinafter "Panter-Brick and Smith"). The term "abandonment," as discussed in the book, is used to "provoke pity and an impulse to rescue street children, [which] effectively labels the children and obscures the real issues in their lives" (Panter-Brick and Smith at 2). Many individuals want to jump right in and intervene; however, "we cannot afford interventions that fail because of the lack of first hand research documenting the lives of the children concerned" (Panter-Brick and Smith at 2). Parents are responsible for a safe and happy childhood. The child is viewed as an innocent in need of protection and a dependent in need of guidance. Consequently, "the place that children come to occupy is important because it signifies either a nurturing and secure environment or one in which children may be abused, neglected, corrupted or exposed to deviant habits" (Panter-Brick and Smith at 4 and 5). The nature versus nurture argument should be addressed in this debate. Although there are exceptions where a child from an emotionally supportive and nurturing family turns to the streets in an attempt to rebel, these exceptions are rare. Our focus must be on the children, and what we can do to ensure their best interests. Programs within the school system and the community should provide children with information that will assist in their decision-making skills. Children need to know that there are other options available to meet their needs.

Prior to its eventual amendment, the PCIPA spearheaded a debate in the courts as to how the protection of children could occur without violating sacred human rights. The discrepancies found in the PCIPA are discussed thoroughly by Anna Pellatt and the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: How Does Alberta's Legislation Measure Up? hereinafter referred to as "the ACLRC"). The overall rating given by the ACLRC regarding the efficiency of the PCIPA was very poor. The report found that the respect for the child's view was non-existent (ACLRC, at 95). Section 3 of the PCIPA was considered to be extremely problematic because it projected the idea that once children reached the age of 16 or 17, they were no longer entitled to the services under the PCIPA (ACLRC, at 95). In criminal law, it is possible through an application before the court to move a 16 or 17-year-old, who commits a serious crime, into adult court jurisdiction. However, this is a child protection matter, not a criminal matter. Society should focus on 16 and 17-year-olds just as seriously because they are closer to the legal age of 18. At this age they will be considered old enough to make their own decisions. We must support them and educate them to prepare them for when they are truly on their own. The ACLRC also discussed that by returning children to their homes without an inquiry into the conditions of the home would possibly expose the children to dangerous situations. Also, the PCIPA did not provide for monitoring children once they were placed back into their home (ACLRC, at 96). The report also focused on the lack of complaint procedures in the PCIPA, and the lack of mention within it for "the establishment of programs which are preventive in nature and go to the very heart and source of the problem of child prostitution" (ACLRC, at 96). The report acknowledged how the PCIPA contains good intentions in wanting to provide safety for children; however, it is punitive in nature because the children are deprived of their liberty and dignity (ACLRC, at 97). Most importantly, the PCIPA did not clearly state what was in the best interest of the children although this was ultimately what they wanted to achieve (ACLRC, at 98). The report effectively summarized the deficiencies of the PCIPA. It discussed two issues that I found most important. The issues include the best interest of the child, and the establishment of programs that would provide preventative measures to families and communities.

Since the PCIPA came into effect, provincial statistics show that prostitutes as young as 12 have been taken off the streets (Linda Slobodian, Child hooker law caseload nears 350 (2000 July 24, The Calgary Herald, hereinafter "Slobodian"). The author of the Bill and its number one supporter is Tory MLA Heather Forsyth. The PCIPA has found many critics, including Calgary lawyer Bina Border, who challenged the constitutionality of the law on behalf of two under-aged prostitutes last year. In the above-noted article, Border stated, "the act is a poorly designed, punitive piece of legislation that incarcerates victims who can't appeal their detention." Since the inception of the PCIPA in February of 1999, 343 apprehensions had occurred throughout Alberta, including 70 in Calgary (Slobodian). Within the province, specific numbers include 68 children who were picked up more than once. Seven were 12 years old, 11 were age 13, 66 were age 14, 38 were age 15, and the rest were 17 and 18 years old. Two were boys (Slobodian). Forsyth wants child prostitution eliminated. Border believes that the PCIPA would have only promoted underground child prostitution (Slobodian). Border claims that one of the girls apprehended was not even working as a prostitute (Slobodian). It is unacceptable that broad power is given to police to apprehend and confine children without an appeal process available for the children.

People must understand that those who opposed the PCIPA were not against the premise behind it. However, it must be stressed that procedural elements must be changed in order to protect the rights of children throughout their apprehension and confinement period. Border stated, "I can't get past this legislation that finds them victims of sexual assault and yet as victims we're locking them up. They're being victimized again" (Slobodian). Border would like to see money put towards the crack down on pimps and the education of johns. "Why aren't you locking them up for three days? I'd love to see that" (Slobodian). Not only should money go towards education programs for those who choose to abuse these children (johns), some money should also go towards the increasing number of support and intervention groups which focus on the mental and emotional health of the family unit. It must be hard for parents who truly care about their children's well being. The mother of a former prostitute was disgusted by the physical violence suffered by her daughter at the hands of her pimp. She attempted to call the police for help; she wanted to report her daughter's pimp, "I found out I can't do anything. [My daughter] was what they call legal age" (Slobodian). Why aren't the pimps arrested? Stiffer fines and penalties should be given to pimps and especially to johns to deter their abusive behaviour towards children.

The case of Alberta v. K.B., ([2000] A.J. No. 876 (Alta. Prov. Ct.)) brought the deficiencies of the PCIPA to the forefront more specifically, the lack of procedural elements needed to ensure the rights of children under confinement. In this case, two minors, identified as K.B. and M.J., applied for a ruling that the PCIPA of Alberta be declared unconstitutional because it violated sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Alberta v. K.B. at para. 2), including ss. 7, 8, and 9. K.B. and M.J. were placed in a "protective safehouse" on September 13, 1999. Once in custody, both were subjected to questioning from a child welfare homes. The suggestion of legal reform can only do so much when the instigating problem is embedded in a child's family life. Jordan J. focused on the apprehension situations found within PCIPA in order to determine if there was a s. 7 violation. She determined that the children affected by the PCIPA were unable to dispute the "reasonable and probable grounds for the apprehension and confinement" (Alberta v. K.B. at para. 47). Jordan J. compared the case of B.(R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto to the case at hand in order to show the procedural elements missing in the PCIPA. The procedural elements available in the Ontario Child Welfare Act included the right to a hearing before a judge and the right to an adversarial process where conflicting evidence could be presented (at para. 55). Jordan J. explained that these elements were not found in the PCIPA, thus the procedure
was unfair. She stated at para 57,

"it is the lack of a procedural system which would allow each and every one of the children to appear before a judge with the assistance of counsel, to participate in an adversarial process where they can challenge the Director's evidence and present their own evidence [which offends the principles of fundamental justice.]"

Section 8 of the Charter provides that "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." Jordan J. addressed three issues required to determine if the form of search allowed in the PCIPA violated s. 8. First, she acknowledged that the definition of who needs protection found in the PCIPA "removed any doubt that such a child is deserving of our protection" (at para. 76). Thus, the search was authorized under the PCIPA. Second, society wants to protect children from prostitution; therefore, this law was considered a reasonable one. However, Jordan J. found that because the facts of the search were unable to be reviewed in every case, the search was found neither reasonable nor based on probable grounds. Thus, she found the manner in which the search was conducted was not reasonable because the court was unable to review each case (at paras. 81 and 82).

Charter section 9 states that "everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned." A person who is aware of this basic human right would not approve of the way in which children are confined under the PCIPA. The children are not able to have their voices heard in a court of law. Only one side is heard where there are in reality two parties. It is very likely that children could be apprehended for no reason. Is it not possible that the broad powers given to the police and directors could be used excessively? Jordan J. exclaimed at para. 88, "is [the child's] right to be secure against arbitrary detention which may result from the application of this Act to be ignored because she is a child, or because we are willing to sacrifice her constitutional rights so as to be able to protect another child?" The procedural elements which are found in other Acts (for example, those procedural elements found in the Secure Treatment provisions in the Alberta Child Welfare Act as discussed at para. 83) are not found in this Act. Jordan also explained at para. 90 that "legislation which authorizes apprehension and confinement is arbitrary if it provides no protections for the subject against the actions of the state." Also, at para. 94, she challenged the fact that the opinions of the officers or directors were never open for review in every case; this resulted in a violation of s. 9.

Once these deficiencies in the PCIPA were determined, Jordan J. had to determine if the violations of each section could be saved by s. 1 of the Charter. In other words, the violations must be found to be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The test set out in the Oakes case helps to determine the answer to this question. The test requires that (1) the limit on the Charter right is "of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom," and (2) that the objective of limiting the right must not be trivial, thus it must be a "pressing and substantial" matter, and (3) the party using s. 1 must prove that their reasoning is reasonable and demonstrably justified, and (4) that there must be a balance between "the interest of society with these of individuals and groups" with regard to the limitation of a Charter right (at para. 110).

Jordan J. agreed that the protection of children from sexual abuse under the PCIPA was a "matter of pressing and substantial importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right" (at para. 111). Jordan J. also agreed that the apprehension of children was necessary to achieve the objective of a director being able to assess the child (at para. 113). However, Jordan J. believed it was the procedural elements that were missing which "fail[ed] to meet the requirements of the principles of fundamental justice" (at para 114). There is minimal concern for the rights of children under the PCIPA because of the lack of procedural safeguards. Thus, Jordan J. ruled correctly, in my opinion, that "the offending provisions in the Act cannot be justified in a free and democratic society" (at para. 121).

After Jordan J. ruled that Alberta's child prostitution law was unconstitutional, Heather Forsyth claimed, "the only people who have cause to celebrate tonight are the pimps and johns" (Suzanne Wilton, Prostitution law struck down (29 July 2000, The Calgary Herald, hereinafter "Wilton"). Is this really true? What about human rights activists? Jordan J. found the PCIPA unconstitutional because it lacked procedural safeguards (Wilton). It allowed authorities to apprehend children without obtaining a search warrant and deprived detainees of the right to answer allegations or to judicial appeal. Stephen Jenuth, president of the Alberta Civil Liberties Association, said the provincial government was to blame for the ruling, "the legislature, our MLAs did not do their jobs, they did not look at what safeguards needed to be built to ensure the law was constitutional" (Wilton). The ruling upset social agencies and the police who work extensively with prostitutes. Deputy Chief of Police Rick Hanson stated, "the Calgary Police service views the legislation as crucial for the protection and safety of children" (Wilton). Legislation is important, but some easily forget to address preventative measures.

Heather Forsyth was quoted in the newspaper exclaiming, "they should take the Charter of Rights and shove it. I'm absolutely sick" (Wilton). This statement is quite alarming. Are we living in a democratic society or not? People must understand that the PCIPA itself has a very good premise behind it and that it would have the support of practically everyone if only the proper safeguards were placed within it to ensure the rights of all parties involved. Due to the ruling, police no longer had the power to lock up young prostitutes for 72 hours in safehouses throughout the province. However, pseudo-procedural safeguards were put in place when the ruling of Jordan J. was under review by Rooke J. Many disputed these tactics implemented by the police and the directors of child welfare services because the PCIPA in their eyes was illegal, thus it should not have been used at all until further notice or proper amendments. Consequently, the court system was uncomfortable when asked to apply this controversial law and usually declined to use it (Wilton).

On December 21, 2000, Rooke J. overruled the decision of Jordan J. Rooke J. agreed with Jordan J. that the girls were deprived of their liberty when they were detained. However, "as a statutory court, the provincial court is limited to interpreting or applying the law necessary to deal with the issues before it, and cannot grant a formal declaration of invalidity, which is a remedy exercisable only by a superior court" (Alberta v. K.B., [2000] No. 1570 (Q.B.). at para. 33, hereinafter "Rooke, J."). He found that the apprehension
and confinement process found in the PCIPA was not arbitrary detention and therefore the process did not violate ss. 7 and 9 of the Charter (Rooke, J., at paras. 78 and 91). He also stated that the violation of s. 8 was not an issue because the police were given voluntary entrance into the premises where the children were found (Rooke, J., at para. 29.) Fortunately, his decision did not prevent the legislature from realizing that the PCIPA had to be amended to make it Charter proof and society approved.

The Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Amendment Act (hereinafter referred to as "the PCIPAA") came into force on March 15, 2001. The amendments make the law stronger. It is understandable that society wants to protect its children. However, laws must be Charter proof to allow everyone their constitutional rights. Heather Forsyth also sponsors the PCIPAA. The following are important changes, but it should be noted that this discussion does not include all of the amendments. A police officer or director, on reasonable and probable grounds, can now get a court order to apprehend and confine a child for up to 5 days, compared to the previous 72 hours. This extended period of time allows children to rest and then address their safety concerns. A director must now provide a child with information about the show cause hearing, including (1) the reasons for and time period of confinement, (2) the time and place of hearing, (3) the right to attend the hearing, (4) the right to contact a lawyer, and (5) the telephone number of the Legal Aid Society of Alberta. The Act now provides the right for a child to fill out a request for review form. A review must be held within 1 day of filing and serving on a director the request for review. After the review, the court has the options of either making an order confirming, varying or terminating the director's decision to confine. After assessing the child, the director, if he believes the child would benefit from a further period of confinement, can apply to the court to grant a further 21-day period of confinement. He must serve an "application to confine" form on the child.

The court must now look at 3 points to determine if further confinement is necessary. The court must be satisfied that (1) the release of the child would place a risk to the life or safety of the child or because the child is unable or unwilling to stop engaging in or attempting to engage in prostitution, (2) less intrusive measures are not adequate to reduce the risk, and (3) it is in the best interests of the child to order a period of further confinement for the purpose of making programs or other services available to the child in a safe and secure environment. If the court refuses to make an order to confine or to renew an order for confinement, the applicant may appeal the refusal to the court not more than 15 days after the date of refusal. If a director makes an application for an order to confine or to renew an order to confine, the director must notify the guardian of the child of the nature, time and place of the application. In order to protect the identity of the child, no identifying information may be published that would identify the child or guardian of the child without court permission.

The PCIPAA is procedurally stronger. It addresses most of the concerns of Jordan J., the ACLRC, and those who defend the rights of children. Most importantly, it addresses the concerns of the child. The PCIPAA gives them their rights; its gives them their voice back, and at the same time, provides a safe and respectful haven for children. However, it must be stressed that this safe haven is not permanent. Children must be placed in a nurturing and stable environment; only then will children be truly safe.

Child prostitution is an important issue that must be addressed by society as well as by the courts. Legislation, such as the PCIPAA, which focuses on the protection and safety of children, should be in place. However, support and intervention should reach children before they even consider the streets as their home. It is up to us as a civil society to ensure the safety of children, but this goal should never be at the expense of their rights in society.

We have been busy these past few months. We have a new Human Rights Educator, Melissa Luhtanen. See her report on page 3. Pamela Dos Ramos and Anna Pellatt have been working as contractors to assist with the Freedom of Expression Project. In addition, we have launched a new pilot human rights education program and have Pamela Dos Ramos and Elizabeth Seale working on that. Hina Thaker continues to work with us as a legal research assistant. We have several other exciting new ventures, which will be discussed in the next newsletter! Many thanks to Richard Bennett, who recently retired from our Board of Directors. Welcome to Gary Dickson, who recently joined our Board of Directors.

We are fortunate to be working with excellent volunteers for the last few months including Lisa Van Wijk, Susana Aravena, Lori Eberhardt, Katie Frank, Tyler Lord, Cartney Samson, Pamela Vanberg, Jill Eslinger, Jarrett Moisan, Farah Datoo, and Stacey Jackson. Thanks!!

Thanks also to all of the volunteers who helped the Committee on Race Relations and Cross Cultural Understanding (of which ACLRC is a member) to put on a smashing Rock Against Racism on March 23rd! !

Announcements

In late 2000, the Research Centre and the Learning Commons of the University of Calgary produced a great new video on freedom of expression. This video tackles really challenging issues, such as balancing freedom of expression with anti-racism and other laws. About 23 minutes long, it is intended for those age 15 and up. It includes an extensive user's guide written by Pamela Dos Ramos. The video features Jebb Fink, Laurie Anderson, and a number of extremely talented University of Calgary drama, law and law and society students! Information about the video launch is attached. The video will be sold through Comm Media at the University of Calgary.

The video is one module of a series of materials on freedom of expression, soon to be released by the Research Centre!

Chow Down, Burning Down the Dream, Itchy Ya-Ya, Bare, Wilma's Sacrifice, Baking with Butch - Episode 1, Aren't you lucky to have brought your own chair, Marking the Mother, Manipulation/Dictation, Dollhouse Diaries, Close to You, Singing Grace, Through the Looking Glass, Helpless Maiden Makes an I Statement, Vessel for a Lower Ocean and much more!!!
Tickets are $0 to $20 on a sliding scale (except the gala premiere tickets which are $12)

Human Rights Education Project News

Melissa Luhtanen, Our New Human Rights Educator

Melissa Luhtanen grew up in Vancouver, B.D.. She moved to Ottawa to begin her undergraduate degree at Carleton university. In 1989 and 1991 she traveled extensively throughout Europe, Morocco, Southeast Asia and Australia before returning to Canada and moving to Calgary. After completing 3.5 years of an undergraduate degree in Sociology and Women's Studies, she was accepted to the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary and received her LL.B. in 1999. She articled with the General Counsel at the University of Calgary, with a 3 - month placement in private practice at the office of Virginia L. Palsgrove. In 2000, with much celebration, she was called to the Alberta Bar.

Melissa has been actively involved in human rights issues in the feminist community since she moved to Calgary. She has volunteered on the Calgary Status of Women Action Committee, the Herland Feminist Film and Video Celebration and was active in addressing issues of equality during her University years. The desire to work in the area of human rights was a major impetus for Melissa to attain a degree in Law. Since being called to the Bar, Melissa has worked as an independent legal researcher (her other passion), and in January 2001 was hired as the Human Rights Educator at the Research Centre.

It has been a short 3 months and I already feel happy and at home in my new position as the Human Rights Educator. Although there are a myriad of projects to work on and complete, the calm, peaceful atmosphere of the Research Centre creates a welcome place to address human rights and civil liberties issues. I have already been to a number of local events, conferences and professional development days, where I spoke about issues ranging form sexual harassment to sovereignty.

I even had the pleasure of reading to a grade one and two class, and talking about my career as a human rights educator. The children thought my job was "hard work and fun", and they were right. I research and write about issues that are often upsetting but always worthwhile, and I teach high school students and teachers about topics which are sometimes difficult to talk about but always rewarding. I am also lucky to work with a group of volunteers who help out at the Centre with inspiring commitment. "Hard work and fun" rolled into one!

This week has been somewhat of a typical week in that I am delving into many different projects at once. I spoke to two classes at Mount Royal College about issues facing the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered communities. At the end of the week I'll be speaking to a youth group about sexual harassment and showing the Harassment and What You Can Do About It video produced by the Research Centre. During the week, I am finishing off the final chapter of the Freedom of Expression teacher's manual and putting in appropriate student activities. I will also be liaising with volunteers, talking to callers about human rights issues in their lives, and beginning research for our next project on Refugee Children and War. This latter project will help to create a greater understanding of the issues affecting refugee children in the Canadian school system.

All of these projects serve to heighten my interest in human rights and civil liberties in Canada. There is much to discover and I have found that the Research Centre is the perfect venue for support and information. The secondary school students I teach are keen to learn about the legal rights and responsibilities that impact upon their lived experiences. With each new presentation and every research project, I gain a greater understanding of the complexities surrounding these issues. Here's to a year of mutual learning!

New Human Rights Education Initiatives

The Research Centre received funding from the Alberta Law Foundation to distribute one free copy of our education project, The Rights Angle: Human Rights Education Using the Newspaper, to each secondary school in Alberta. Previously, we received funding from the Calgary Community Lottery Board and the United Way of Calgary and area, and collaborated with the Committee on Race Relations and Cross Cultural Understanding to provide free copies and in-services in Calgary. The pilot was very successful and lead to the initiative across Alberta.

The Alberta Law Foundation has provided sufficient funding for the Research Centre to hire contractors to perform human rights education across Alberta. This exciting new venture was launched in January and currently Elizabeth Seale and Pamela Dos Ramos are assisting us with the pilot project.

Rights from the Heart, Part 1 (ages 5 - 8) and Part 2 (ages 9-12) consist of a series of short films distributed by the NFB. These animated clips, ranging from 3 to 9 minutes, each focus on an Article from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). A total of 13 different themes are addressed between the two videos. One of my favorite pieces was "Overdose" by Claude Cloutier (Part 2). It addressed Article 31, which says that children have a right to leisure activities and play. A little boy is awoken each morning to a day overwhelmingly full of activities; he goes to school, does his homework, plays piano, and goes to tennis lessons, swimming lessons, and oil-painting lessons. By the end of the week he is truly exhausted. On the one hand, the little boy is privileged to have access to so many learning opportunities. On the other hand, he is overwhelmed by so much activity, and needs rest and leisure time. This video brings home the point that even in privileged families in Canada the CRC Articles have application. In fact, every segment on the two videos is produced in such a way that they could be applicable to any number of countries.

I showcased both videos at a conference on the CRC for kindergarten to grade 6 teachers. There was a discussion around whether the teachers were comfortable with screening all of these video segments in their classrooms. For example, one piece called "Jonas and Lisa" by Zabelle Cote and Daniel Schorr addresses Article 27 ("Children have a right to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development"). This is a powerful 9 minute video clip on a poverty stricken family who is fighting for survival. There are undertones of child abuse. The objection some teachers had to this piece was that they were unable to offer any comfort or help to students who were living in a similar situation at home. These teachers felt the video brought issues to the forefront that they were unable to solve. Given this concern teachers should ensure that they choose a segment that will promote useful discussion with their particular set of students. Other teachers suggested that they may need to do some research in advance of the class discussion, to find out what options are available to address the particular issue. The videos come with a teacher's manual, which is useful in deconstructing the Article addressed. Most importantly, the class should have ample opportunity to discuss each animated piece after it is shown. Rights from the Heart is an excellent resource for any classroom trying to deconstruct the complex issues that invoke rights held under the CRC.

These videos can be borrowed from the Research Centre, or to order your own copy, call the National Film Board, 1-800-267-7710. Free catalogues are also available.

Changing Legislation for Same-sex Couples

Bill C-23 The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act is a sign of the changing pace of laws affecting same-sex couples. The S.C.C. decision in M. v. H., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 3, found that the law in Ontario, which only allowed opposite sex spouses to apply for spousal support, was discriminatory under the Charter. The S.C.C. suggested that all governments should be considering similar legislation to ensure their laws are in sync with the Charter. Bill C-23 amends federal legislation so that same sex couples have the same rights and responsibilities as those extended to opposite sex couples. The Income Tax Act, one of the more prominent statutes affected by Bill C-23, will now be applicable to same-sex couples who have been living together for over one year. These amendments, along with the Re (A) ((1999), 253 A.R. 74) adoption case, which legalized adoption between same-sex spouses in Alberta, indicate a move toward greater equality for gays and lesbians. In this legal climate of changing rights and responsibilities affecting gays and lesbians, it is critical for same-sex couples to consult a lawyer to draw up a Cohabitation Agreement, Personal Directive, Power of Attorney and Will.

The Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre appreciates the contributions made by donors and volunteers, and the support of agencies that provide grants to the Centre, including:

The Kahanoff Foundation

The United Way of Calgary and Area

The Sheldon M. Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership

Department of Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada

Status of Women Canada

Human Resources Development Canada (S.C.P.)

Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Education Fund

Calgary Community Lottery Board

Alberta Advanced Education and Community Development (S.T.E.P.)

c/o Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre
University of Calgary
Faculty of Law
2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4

Centrepiece is the newsletter of the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre. The views expressed in Centrepiece are the opinions of the author, and not necessarily the views of the Research Centre; its Board, staff, or volunteers; or its funders.

The Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre holds copyright to all material appearing in Centrepiece unless otherwise indicated. Reproduction of Centrepiece articles to which the Centre holds copyright is permitted, so long as the author and the source are acknowledged. Please contact the Research Centre if you wish to obtain permission to reproduce any other material.

Subscription rates are $10.00 for one year. (Complimentary subscriptions for donors and volunteers.) Please enclose payment with your order.

CENTREPIECE

Alberta's Child Prostitution Legislation

Staff and Volunteers

Announcements

Human Rights Education Project News

Melissa Luhtanen, Our New Human Rights Educator

New Human Rights Education Initiatives

Changing Legislation for Same-sex Couples

This web site © 1999-2004 Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. This page last updated on November 25, 2002 .