Monthly Archives: May 2011
Yes, I am a die-hard Canucks Fan…but even if you aren’t a fan it’s a damn fine tune and video.
Loverboy’s Mike Reno, who now co-hosts the weekday morning show with Bro Jake on Vancouver’s Classic Rock 101, just released his brand new Canucks anthem Flying High, which he wrote and recorded with Ben Karlstrom.
The music video features Bro Jake and other Classic Rock 101 peeps, as well as Premier Christy Clark, broadcast personalities Shane Foxman and Bill Good and, of course, a whole bunch of Canucks fans.
Check out the very ’80s rock-inspired tune in the video.
Last week I posted Olivia Pratten wins court case that was a short news account on her victory for donor conceived individuals in BC. In the comments I link to a more in-depth article on it. I hope that it spurs some serious ethical discussions and changes based on the ramifications anonymous donation has on the individual conceived in this manner.
Today I found the following details about why she won.
HELD: Action allowed, in part. The provisions of the Adoption Act and Adoption Regulation, with the exception of s. 4(1)(e) to (h) of the Regulation, unjustifiably contravened s. 15 of the Charter, were not saved by s. 1, and, as a result, were of no force or effect. The declaration was suspended for a period of 15 months. A permanent injunction was granted prohibiting the destruction, disposal, redaction or transfer of Gamete Donor Records in British Columbia. Pratten’s claims for declarations under s. 7 of the Charter were dismissed. The omission of donor offspring from the benefits and protections provided to adoptees under the Adoption Act and Adoption Regulation was a violation of s. 15(1) of the Charter. Excluding donor offspring from the benefits and protections of the Adoption Act and Adoption Regulation created a distinction between adoptees and donor offspring. The distinction was based on an analogous ground, namely, manner of conception, and specifically, conception by anonymous gamete donation. Except for s. 4(1)(e) to 4(1)(h) of the Adoption Regulation, the omission of donor offspring from the provisions of the Adoption Act and Adoption Regulation was discriminatory.
The above link provides more than just the quote above as to the reasons why Pratten was successful in the permanent injunction against destruction, disposal, or redaction of donor records in BC. From my understanding the decision was based on 15.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the BC Adoption Act and Adoption Regulations Act. Both are well worth the time to read and hopefully other jurisdictions will look to BC. Links to these acts are at the end of the post.
15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
By Kaelen Onusko, University of Alberta LL.B. student
What is Equality?
The term “equality” is difficult to define, as there is no precise meaning of the word. Canadian courts have interpreted “equality” to mean that every individual is entitled to dignity and respect and that the law should apply to each individual equally.
The entire article is well worth reading and goes into how the courts have dealt with specific other cases. Further down the page it states:
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the purpose of section 15 was to protect vulnerable groups from discrimination. Discrimination was defined as “a distinction, whether intentional or not but based on grounds relating to personal characteristics of the individual or group, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on such individuals or groups not imposed upon others, or which withholds or limits access to opportunities, benefits, and advantages available to other members of society.”
Further down it provides the clarification of human dignity from the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of the term “human dignity” and what it was comprised of. “Human dignity means that an individual or group feels self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment.”