The role of popular mobilizations in the struggle for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In spite of the best efforts of Canada's first ministers, the debate leading up to the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was characterized by the mobilization of several demanding factors of the Canadian populace. The Hays-Joyal hearings on the Constitution provided a formal setting for popular participation, and in fact drew submissions from a variety of special interest groups. Significantly, the minimal class representation in both the formal and informal processes of Charter construction was in stark contrast to the militant interventions of women's and Native's lobbies. In spite of the resistance of the politicians, and in spite of internal weaknesses, these movements were able to impose some elements of their collective demands on the otherwise limited vision of rights in Canada. Their voices were in fact heard over the din of federal-provincial squabbling.This article is a revised version of a Chapter from the author's Doctoral Dissertation, entitledCanada's Passive Revolution: The Charter and Hegemonic Politics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, August 1992.     

Legislating on occupational safety and health: a comparison of the British and American experience

Abstract. In the early 1970s both the United Kingdom and the United States legislated new occupational safety regulations. Enforcement strategies varied considerably: the British chose a persuasive, the Americans a coercive approach. The legislative process was characterized by consensus in the first case, by conflict in the second. Consequentially the UK regulation appears to have been quite effective, while the US one led only to negligible results. This difference can be mainly explained by the different strength of the interest groups involved in the regulation's implementation.     

Medical and legal aspects of genital mutilation and circumcision. Part II: Male circumcision

In the last few years, male circumcision has become the subject of controversial discussion. On the one hand, medical and hygienic arguments, ideology, freedom of religion, cultural identity and social adequacy are claimed by those supporting male circumcision. On the other hand, the justification of this practice also has to be critically scrutinized just as the question whether the parents have the right to consent to the operation. Today, opinions range from those who claim that religion and culture alone justify the practice to those who consider circumcision of minors unable to give their consent as bodily injury subject to punishment. In contrast to female genital mutilation, most positions do not postulate that circumcision violates morality. If the person concerned is able to give his consent, freedom of religion may also justify circumcision after weighing its pros and cons as well as its risks and potential side effects.