Lambda Book Report
April 2005Legal briefs.BYLINE: Monifa, AkilahSECTION: Vol. 13, No. 9-10; Pg. 33; ISSN: 1048-9487LENGTH: 843 words
HIGHLIGHT:The Rights of Lesbians, Gay Men, Bisexuals, and Transgender PeopleThe Rights of Lesbians, Gay Men, Bisexuals, and Transgender People
By Nan Hunter, Courtney G. Joslin, and Sharon M. McGowan
Southern Illinois University Press
ISBN 0-8093-2518-7
PB, $17.00, 218 pp.
Sexual Rights in America: The Ninth Amendment and the Pursuit of Happiness
By Paul R. Abramson, Steven D. Pinkerton and Mark Huppin
New York University Press
ISBN 0-8147-0692-4
HB, $35.00, 227 pp.
Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States: A Documentary History
Edited by Walter L. Williams and Yolanda Retter
Greenwood Press
ISBN 0-313-30696-6
HB, $49.95, 317 pp.
Books with the word "rights" in them are usually very academic, not accessible for reading and full of footnotes. These three books are certainly all academic in nature and tone, but are all accessible when read by non-academic types.The Rights of Lesbians, Gay Men, Bisexuals, and Transgender People, an ACLU guide, has the physical look of a law review. As I former law student, lawyer and then law professor, that's what I was expecting. But I was pleasantly surprised by the organization of this book. There are four parts: "Sexual Orientation and the State," which includes categories such as expression, the right not to be silent, criminal law, government employees, the military, and immigration "Civil Rights in the Private Sector," including information on employment in the private sector, housing and credit, and public accommodations "Families and Schools," with subcategories of relationships, parenting and youth and a catchall category, "Specialized Issues" which includes transgender people and people with HIV/AIDS.
The book contains good, sensible categories and subcategories that are then organized by simple questions and answers. It reads well cover to cover, and is a great tool if one wants to research a specific issue. There is also a good appendix that lists national and regional LGBT legal groups as well as an introduction to law and the legal system. The index is also quite handy. For example, if you look up "dancing" you are led to "civil rights in the public sector" and "public accommodations" and the question: "may a bar or club throw out two people of the same sex for dancing together? For displays of affection in public?"
Sexual Rights in America takes a narrower focus, concentrating, as the title implies, on the Ninth Amendment--its past history and future, while examining sex and the Constitution in general, as well as other issues like "dial-a-porn" and child pornography. The authors note that although sex is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the "pursuit of happiness" amendment is often used in interpretation to cover these areas. The authors think that this catch-all amendment was envisioned by the founding fathers to allow for sexual rights. The book is a mix of psychology and law all of the authors have a background in psychology or psychiatry and one has a law background.
The last book of the trio, Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States, is, as the subtitle states, a "documentary history." It examines documents in both American history and contemporary issues. The book is divided both chronologically and in subjects: clash of religions life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: the development of a homophile identity in the United States, 1775-1950 civil rights and civil liberties: the making of a gay and lesbian movement in the United States, 1950-1977 backlash: the reaction to gay and lesbian progress in the United States, 1977-1987 and queer America: the acceptance of sexual and gender diversity in the United States, 1987-2000.
The documents are articles, books, court cases, oral histories, excerpts from speeches and the like. Chronicles begin in 1930, with an anthropologist examining Native American attitudes toward transvestites and so-called hermaphrodites.
The editors certainly achieve their objective of a "mix of voices representing a cross section of generations, ethnicities, classes, religions, races, occupations, ideologies, and genders. "Ultimately they fail to tell a coherent story and I'm not certain that they hit their other objective to "clarify the controversy over gay and lesbian rights in the United States." They most certainly have provided a wealth of information, but that's just it. The information is provided as fact, and the editors don't take a clear stance in helping illuminate anything.
There is no doubt that all three books make wonderful reference tools and provide good information. And certainly all of the books cover different areas, but the The Rights of Lesbians, Gay Men, Bisexuals, and Transgender People wins top honors for information, organization and readability.
Reviewed by Akilah Monifa
Akilah Monifa is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.
Friday, April 1, 2005
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Kwanzaa beyond the myths
By Akilah Monifa
Many misconceptions persist about Kwanzaa, which runs from Dec. 26 until Jan. 1.
Unlike many other holidays, Kwanzaa is solely cultural, not religious. Founded by Dr. Maulana Karenga in 1966, it celebrates African-American heritage, family, community and culture based on the rituals of African harvest festivals. The name Kwanzaa means "first fruits" in Swahili. And like most holidays, plenty of talking, singing and eating are involved.
The seven-day holiday has a different principle for each day, which is represented by the Kwanzaa kinara, or candleholder. The first principle is "Umoja," or unity, and the last one is "Imani," or faith.
Many myths still surround the holiday:
Myth 1: Kwanzaa is a "Black Christmas," and folks who celebrate it don't also celebrate Christmas.
Reality: Kwanzaa has nothing to do with Christmas. It's not religious and, as in our family, some folks celebrate Kwanzaa as well as other holidays, including Hanukkah.
Myth 2: Celebrating Kwanzaa is tantamount to supporting black nationalism or separatism.
Reality: None of Kwanzaa's principles calls for nationalism or separatism. This myth probably originated because Karenga, who is a professor and chairman of black studies at California State University at Long Beach, was a militant activist in the 1960s.
Myth 3: Only black people can celebrate Kwanzaa.
Reality: In my experience, I have not seen a Kwanzaa celebration with only black people, and I have never heard of non-black folks being excluded from the celebration. As our society becomes increasingly racially and ethnically diverse, more and more of us have diverse backgrounds and families. The focus of the holiday is to create and respect community among African-Americans, but everyone -- of all backgrounds -- is welcome to share in this celebration.
Myth 4: One has to celebrate all seven days of Kwanzaa.
Reality: Much like Hanukkah, I know of few folks who do full-fledged celebrations of Kwanzaa for all seven days.
My family and I will celebrate several holidays this season, and we hope to embrace the principles of each throughout these next few weeks.
It is not important which holidays we celebrate.
The key is to embody the message of peace, unity and happiness.
Many misconceptions persist about Kwanzaa, which runs from Dec. 26 until Jan. 1.
Unlike many other holidays, Kwanzaa is solely cultural, not religious. Founded by Dr. Maulana Karenga in 1966, it celebrates African-American heritage, family, community and culture based on the rituals of African harvest festivals. The name Kwanzaa means "first fruits" in Swahili. And like most holidays, plenty of talking, singing and eating are involved.
The seven-day holiday has a different principle for each day, which is represented by the Kwanzaa kinara, or candleholder. The first principle is "Umoja," or unity, and the last one is "Imani," or faith.
Many myths still surround the holiday:
Myth 1: Kwanzaa is a "Black Christmas," and folks who celebrate it don't also celebrate Christmas.
Reality: Kwanzaa has nothing to do with Christmas. It's not religious and, as in our family, some folks celebrate Kwanzaa as well as other holidays, including Hanukkah.
Myth 2: Celebrating Kwanzaa is tantamount to supporting black nationalism or separatism.
Reality: None of Kwanzaa's principles calls for nationalism or separatism. This myth probably originated because Karenga, who is a professor and chairman of black studies at California State University at Long Beach, was a militant activist in the 1960s.
Myth 3: Only black people can celebrate Kwanzaa.
Reality: In my experience, I have not seen a Kwanzaa celebration with only black people, and I have never heard of non-black folks being excluded from the celebration. As our society becomes increasingly racially and ethnically diverse, more and more of us have diverse backgrounds and families. The focus of the holiday is to create and respect community among African-Americans, but everyone -- of all backgrounds -- is welcome to share in this celebration.
Myth 4: One has to celebrate all seven days of Kwanzaa.
Reality: Much like Hanukkah, I know of few folks who do full-fledged celebrations of Kwanzaa for all seven days.
My family and I will celebrate several holidays this season, and we hope to embrace the principles of each throughout these next few weeks.
It is not important which holidays we celebrate.
The key is to embody the message of peace, unity and happiness.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Society has much to learn about adoption
By Akilah Monifa
November 12, 2003
Nov. 22 is National Adoption Day and this is National Adoption Month. I appreciate the recognition.
My partner and I are the mothers of two children, and although they joined our family, we do not refer to them as my "adopted" children.
It is amazing to me the number of strangers who approach me and ask questions in front of my children about how they may have joined my family. Questions like, "What do you know about the 'real' or 'natural' mother or father?" "Aren't you afraid they will want their kids back?" "Why were they given away?"
I struggle with how to reply to these questions because my main goal is to protect my children. I do not want them to feel stigmatized in any way.
My partner suggests a universal response to all such questions: "I'm sure you wouldn't have asked if you had known, but in our family, we don't discuss with strangers how our family was formed."
For me it's quite simple. I am a woman who wanted children. Our children know in an age-appropriate way how our family was formed. Our son is too young, but we talk to our daughter, who is now almost 3, about adoption, tell her the story of how she joined our family and let her know about how other families were created through adoption.
There are about 150,000 children and youth waiting in the foster-care system in the United States for permanent placement, according to recent estimates available from the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families. Thousands of eligible children in need of adoptive families are children of color. Many are older children and siblings who want to stay together.
A study released last year by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption found that nearly 40 percent of American adults have considered adopting a child. With the advent of the Internet and with easily accessible information now available about adoption, people interested in adopting don't have far to look.
As for me, I will concentrate on raising and protecting my children. My wish for National Adoption Month and beyond is for all of us to understand that every child -- regardless of how they joined a family -- needs a loving home.
Akilah Monifa is a free-lance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
November 12, 2003
Nov. 22 is National Adoption Day and this is National Adoption Month. I appreciate the recognition.
My partner and I are the mothers of two children, and although they joined our family, we do not refer to them as my "adopted" children.
It is amazing to me the number of strangers who approach me and ask questions in front of my children about how they may have joined my family. Questions like, "What do you know about the 'real' or 'natural' mother or father?" "Aren't you afraid they will want their kids back?" "Why were they given away?"
I struggle with how to reply to these questions because my main goal is to protect my children. I do not want them to feel stigmatized in any way.
My partner suggests a universal response to all such questions: "I'm sure you wouldn't have asked if you had known, but in our family, we don't discuss with strangers how our family was formed."
For me it's quite simple. I am a woman who wanted children. Our children know in an age-appropriate way how our family was formed. Our son is too young, but we talk to our daughter, who is now almost 3, about adoption, tell her the story of how she joined our family and let her know about how other families were created through adoption.
There are about 150,000 children and youth waiting in the foster-care system in the United States for permanent placement, according to recent estimates available from the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families. Thousands of eligible children in need of adoptive families are children of color. Many are older children and siblings who want to stay together.
A study released last year by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption found that nearly 40 percent of American adults have considered adopting a child. With the advent of the Internet and with easily accessible information now available about adoption, people interested in adopting don't have far to look.
As for me, I will concentrate on raising and protecting my children. My wish for National Adoption Month and beyond is for all of us to understand that every child -- regardless of how they joined a family -- needs a loving home.
Akilah Monifa is a free-lance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Reorganizing Head Start will hurt nation's poor children
By Akilah Monifa
July 22, 2003
The nation's Head Start program, which is up for a vote in the House of Representatives, should be left alone.
It was started in 1965, and the idea was to give low-income kids between ages 3 and 5 a "head start" before beginning kindergarten. Since then, Head Start has helped more than 20 million underprivileged children, and it currently has another 1 million children in the program.
Head Start is up for reauthorization this year, and the House is scheduled to vote soon on the School Readiness Act, which would establish a pilot program in eight states, giving them oversight of the program's funding and standards.
It would move Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education, which would shift it away from a comprehensive social services program and toward one that emphasizes academics.
The bill, according to its sponsors and the Bush administration, will strengthen Head Start by increasing its focus on literacy and school readiness.
But there are two major problems that could occur.
First, the Head Start program, under Health and Human Services, properly emphasizes comprehensive child development. The early years of a child's life are the most crucial ones, and kids need more than just rudimentary academics. They also need nutritious meals, dental and medical care, social skills, and parental involvement -- all of which Head Start provides. Once these social supports are in place, academic success is more likely.
Second, by giving more power to the states to run the program, the bill would set up Head Start for failure. Most states are in fiscal crisis and would have a strong incentive to divert funds from the program.
What's more, the bill would require half of all the teachers in the program to have bachelor's degrees by 2008, but it does not allocate money for the higher salaries that the advanced degrees will require, so it might make the states' budget headaches even more painful.
This should not be a partisan issue. If we care about children and education, we should commit ourselves to continuing the successful Head Start program -- not toying with it or dismantling it.
Akilah Monifa is a free-lance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
July 22, 2003
The nation's Head Start program, which is up for a vote in the House of Representatives, should be left alone.
It was started in 1965, and the idea was to give low-income kids between ages 3 and 5 a "head start" before beginning kindergarten. Since then, Head Start has helped more than 20 million underprivileged children, and it currently has another 1 million children in the program.
Head Start is up for reauthorization this year, and the House is scheduled to vote soon on the School Readiness Act, which would establish a pilot program in eight states, giving them oversight of the program's funding and standards.
It would move Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education, which would shift it away from a comprehensive social services program and toward one that emphasizes academics.
The bill, according to its sponsors and the Bush administration, will strengthen Head Start by increasing its focus on literacy and school readiness.
But there are two major problems that could occur.
First, the Head Start program, under Health and Human Services, properly emphasizes comprehensive child development. The early years of a child's life are the most crucial ones, and kids need more than just rudimentary academics. They also need nutritious meals, dental and medical care, social skills, and parental involvement -- all of which Head Start provides. Once these social supports are in place, academic success is more likely.
Second, by giving more power to the states to run the program, the bill would set up Head Start for failure. Most states are in fiscal crisis and would have a strong incentive to divert funds from the program.
What's more, the bill would require half of all the teachers in the program to have bachelor's degrees by 2008, but it does not allocate money for the higher salaries that the advanced degrees will require, so it might make the states' budget headaches even more painful.
This should not be a partisan issue. If we care about children and education, we should commit ourselves to continuing the successful Head Start program -- not toying with it or dismantling it.
Akilah Monifa is a free-lance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Early detection for HIV/AIDS will save lives
By Akilah Monifa
June 19, 2003
June 27 is National HIV Testing Day, and with the soaring rates of infection in the United States, we need to raise awareness about testing.
AIDS affects people of all ethnicities and identities. HIV infection rates in folks who identify as gay have decreased since the early 1980s, when HIV and AIDS were first identified, but rates for women and people of color have increased. Of the 43,000 new AIDS cases reported in the United States in 2001, nearly half were African Americans. And among women with AIDS, nearly two-thirds were African Americans.
Statistics show that 1 in 3 people who are infected with HIV do not know about their infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the more unfortunate statistic is the number of folks who simply don't care whether they are or not.
Educating people about HIV and AIDS is key. Past campaigns have emphasized abstinence and condom use. While these are good ways of reducing the risk of new infections, they must be supplemented with facts about testing, not stymied by stigma.
The AIDS epidemic has already cost more than 28 million lives worldwide. Thousands contract the disease daily, mostly through unprotected sex. With testing, many of these cases could be detected early and treated with new vaccines now available on the market.
Testing facilities should help educate communities and encourage sexually active individuals to get tested with regularity. Organizations like the National AIDS Hotline (800-342-AIDS) can help people find testing locations near their hometowns.
Although many people with HIV/AIDS in the United States are living longer and more productive lives, there is still no cure. We need to encourage testing year round so that early detection can prevent this epidemic from prematurely claiming more lives.
Akilah Monifa is a free-lance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
June 19, 2003
June 27 is National HIV Testing Day, and with the soaring rates of infection in the United States, we need to raise awareness about testing.
AIDS affects people of all ethnicities and identities. HIV infection rates in folks who identify as gay have decreased since the early 1980s, when HIV and AIDS were first identified, but rates for women and people of color have increased. Of the 43,000 new AIDS cases reported in the United States in 2001, nearly half were African Americans. And among women with AIDS, nearly two-thirds were African Americans.
Statistics show that 1 in 3 people who are infected with HIV do not know about their infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And the more unfortunate statistic is the number of folks who simply don't care whether they are or not.
Educating people about HIV and AIDS is key. Past campaigns have emphasized abstinence and condom use. While these are good ways of reducing the risk of new infections, they must be supplemented with facts about testing, not stymied by stigma.
The AIDS epidemic has already cost more than 28 million lives worldwide. Thousands contract the disease daily, mostly through unprotected sex. With testing, many of these cases could be detected early and treated with new vaccines now available on the market.
Testing facilities should help educate communities and encourage sexually active individuals to get tested with regularity. Organizations like the National AIDS Hotline (800-342-AIDS) can help people find testing locations near their hometowns.
Although many people with HIV/AIDS in the United States are living longer and more productive lives, there is still no cure. We need to encourage testing year round so that early detection can prevent this epidemic from prematurely claiming more lives.
Akilah Monifa is a free-lance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
Tuesday, December 18, 2001
Video games perpetuate racial and gender stereotypes
By Akilah Monifa
December 18, 2001
With Christmas right around the corner, many children have video games on their wish lists. The violence of these games bothers me, as do their representations of people of color and women.
A recently released report by Children Now's Children & the Media Program analyzes race and ethnicity, violence and gender in video games and finds some surprising numbers.
While the percentage of African-Americans characters in video games is greater than the percentage of African Americans in the population, black characters played stereotypical roles. Only 4 percent of African-American characters appeared as heroes, compared with 87 percent of white characters.
The study shows that 83 percent of African-American males were portrayed as competitors in sports games, while 86 percent of African-American females were non-action and non-competitor characters.
African-American female characters were also more likely than any other group to be victims of violence. Their victimization rate was 86 percent, compared to white females who were at 45 percent. In general, female characters were more likely than males to scream and to wear revealing clothing.
African-American characters were also the most verbally aggressive, screaming, taunting and insulting in many of the games.Latinos don't fare well, either. Only 2 percent of the characters were non-white Latinos, and none were Latina. Every one of the Latino characters was in sports games, usually baseball. What's more, 83 percent of the Latinos were shown exhibiting physical harm and pain after an injury, such as colliding into a wall while trying to catch a pop fly.
Children's exposure to violent media, including video games, could lead to future aggressive behavior and desensitization to violence, according to a recent study by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Children who play video games are being sent negative messages about violence, gender and race.
As many children find video games under the tree this Christmas, they should be made aware that these depictions of people of color are far from reality.
Akilah Monifa is a free-lance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
December 18, 2001
With Christmas right around the corner, many children have video games on their wish lists. The violence of these games bothers me, as do their representations of people of color and women.
A recently released report by Children Now's Children & the Media Program analyzes race and ethnicity, violence and gender in video games and finds some surprising numbers.
While the percentage of African-Americans characters in video games is greater than the percentage of African Americans in the population, black characters played stereotypical roles. Only 4 percent of African-American characters appeared as heroes, compared with 87 percent of white characters.
The study shows that 83 percent of African-American males were portrayed as competitors in sports games, while 86 percent of African-American females were non-action and non-competitor characters.
African-American female characters were also more likely than any other group to be victims of violence. Their victimization rate was 86 percent, compared to white females who were at 45 percent. In general, female characters were more likely than males to scream and to wear revealing clothing.
African-American characters were also the most verbally aggressive, screaming, taunting and insulting in many of the games.Latinos don't fare well, either. Only 2 percent of the characters were non-white Latinos, and none were Latina. Every one of the Latino characters was in sports games, usually baseball. What's more, 83 percent of the Latinos were shown exhibiting physical harm and pain after an injury, such as colliding into a wall while trying to catch a pop fly.
Children's exposure to violent media, including video games, could lead to future aggressive behavior and desensitization to violence, according to a recent study by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Children who play video games are being sent negative messages about violence, gender and race.
As many children find video games under the tree this Christmas, they should be made aware that these depictions of people of color are far from reality.
Akilah Monifa is a free-lance writer living in Oakland, Calif. She can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.
Wednesday, October 31, 2001
Lesbian Review of Books
Fall 2001
Canada Takes the Lead
BYLINE: Monifa, Akilah
SECTION: Vol. VIII, No. 1; Pg. 6; ISSN: 1077-5684LENGTH: 974 words
HIGHLIGHT:Canada: Has made great strides in legal treatment of gays and lesbians books discuss social movements and laws affecting their statusby Akilah Monifa
Are We "Persons" Yet?: Law and Sexuality in Canada By Kathleen A. Lahey. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999, 474 pp., $80.00 cloth, ISBN 0-8020-4205-8. $24.95 paper, ISBN 0-8020-8062-6.
Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-Seeking 1971-1995 By Miriam Smith. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999, 211 pp., $50.00 cloth, ISBN 0-8020-4391-7. $17.95 paper, ISBN 0-8020-8197-5.
We all recall what it is like literally to be less than human, less than a person. The United States of America has a history with slavery and human beings in various instances being divided and counted as less than the whole person they were. Our neighbors to the north, Canada, have in many ways made remarkable strides in the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. These volumes remind us of where they have been, how far they have come, and that there is still much work to be done.
The concept of Are We "Persons" Yet? derives from the notion that before 1929 women were not considered person. In that year, The Privy Council of Canada declared that women were "persons" under the British North America Act. There has yet to be a similar anointment of personhood on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and transgendered people in the country. Of course, as in the United States and other countries, progress has been made toward more rights for LGBT communities, but that is not the same as equality. Queers are of course a minority of the population women, although a literal majority, certainly have not been major political power brokers in Canada or elsewhere.
Lahey, a professor and Queen's National Scholar, Faculty of Law, also has a cross-appointment at the Institute of Women's Studies at Queen's University. She chronicles first the manner "in which basic legal rights and human rights were initially denied to sexual minorities in Canada" (xiii). She made the decision to begin there because although there was a general human and civil rights movement, it excluded queers until recently. Queers in Canada relied solely on human rights codes for protection. But even with these "protections," no human rights complaint brought forth was ever resolved in favor of the queer complainant.
Then along came the Charter of Rights and subsequent lawsuits to determine whether sexual minorities were included in the charter. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that lesbians and gay men were included in the charter and there could be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. But of course bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgendered folk were not included in the Supreme Court ruling.
Lahey makes an interesting race-based analogy with discrimination and denial of personage of another group in Canada, the Aboriginal peoples, who are governed by the Indian Act and are also not afforded full and equal person status. The link between race/civil rights and overall human rights with queers is land some scholars have feared to tread. Lahey goes there, and with success. For the reality is that the legal arguments are the same.
Lahey notes that "private consensual adult gay sex was decriminalized in 1929" (26), so queers do not have to worry about the onus of criminal prosecution and incarceration. But of course this still leaves the larger civil problems around equality, immigration law, inheritance law, and same-sex marriage, as well as the widespread exclusion of queers from government censuses and other statistical surveys.
Lahey ends her well-researched and documented tome with a comparison to the laws of Canada's southern neighbor, the United States of America. Lahey is historical without being academic or dry. Her greatest gift is the clear connection and analysis of discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or other queer status and that based on race, sex, sexuality, and/or marital status. If one is seeking a template for analyzing and deconstructing queer discrimination, Are We "Persons" Yet? would be an excellent guidebook. Canada is similar to many industrial countries in its schizophrenic treatment of queers and other minorities. And until we are all "persons," our legal, social, economic, and political freedom is limited.
Whereas Persons focuses on the legal arena with a nod to social movements, as its title implies, Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-Seeking, 1971-1995 focuses on actual social movements: Although Smith begins in 1971, the book focuses on "the ways in which the 1982 entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the constitution has influenced the political directions of the movement" (ix). The primary question is, how does legislation impact a social movement?
The movement was fledgling in 1971, but by the book's documented endpoint of 1995 external signs blossomed: organizing around AIDS and HIV, Pride celebrations in major cities, and the proliferation of lesbian and gay media. Smith compares the lesbian and gay rights movements against other social rights movements such as the women's movement and the disability rights movements. Clearly a key component to all movements in their quest for equality is to show their inherent humanness, their sameness yet acceptable differences. Smith concludes that laws like the Charter set the framework for social movements and allow "discourse, values, and self-understandings of movement actors" (156).
These two books work well in tandem to summarize, explain, and inform both the laws and social movements in Canada that lead to where the queer movement is today.
Akilah Monifa is a media trainer/public relations strategist at the SPIN Project in San Francisco, CA. She is also a freelance writer and a former law professor at New College School of Law.
Copyright 2001 The Lesbian Review of Books
Fall 2001
Canada Takes the Lead
BYLINE: Monifa, Akilah
SECTION: Vol. VIII, No. 1; Pg. 6; ISSN: 1077-5684LENGTH: 974 words
HIGHLIGHT:Canada: Has made great strides in legal treatment of gays and lesbians books discuss social movements and laws affecting their statusby Akilah Monifa
Are We "Persons" Yet?: Law and Sexuality in Canada By Kathleen A. Lahey. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999, 474 pp., $80.00 cloth, ISBN 0-8020-4205-8. $24.95 paper, ISBN 0-8020-8062-6.
Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-Seeking 1971-1995 By Miriam Smith. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999, 211 pp., $50.00 cloth, ISBN 0-8020-4391-7. $17.95 paper, ISBN 0-8020-8197-5.
We all recall what it is like literally to be less than human, less than a person. The United States of America has a history with slavery and human beings in various instances being divided and counted as less than the whole person they were. Our neighbors to the north, Canada, have in many ways made remarkable strides in the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. These volumes remind us of where they have been, how far they have come, and that there is still much work to be done.
The concept of Are We "Persons" Yet? derives from the notion that before 1929 women were not considered person. In that year, The Privy Council of Canada declared that women were "persons" under the British North America Act. There has yet to be a similar anointment of personhood on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and transgendered people in the country. Of course, as in the United States and other countries, progress has been made toward more rights for LGBT communities, but that is not the same as equality. Queers are of course a minority of the population women, although a literal majority, certainly have not been major political power brokers in Canada or elsewhere.
Lahey, a professor and Queen's National Scholar, Faculty of Law, also has a cross-appointment at the Institute of Women's Studies at Queen's University. She chronicles first the manner "in which basic legal rights and human rights were initially denied to sexual minorities in Canada" (xiii). She made the decision to begin there because although there was a general human and civil rights movement, it excluded queers until recently. Queers in Canada relied solely on human rights codes for protection. But even with these "protections," no human rights complaint brought forth was ever resolved in favor of the queer complainant.
Then along came the Charter of Rights and subsequent lawsuits to determine whether sexual minorities were included in the charter. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that lesbians and gay men were included in the charter and there could be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. But of course bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgendered folk were not included in the Supreme Court ruling.
Lahey makes an interesting race-based analogy with discrimination and denial of personage of another group in Canada, the Aboriginal peoples, who are governed by the Indian Act and are also not afforded full and equal person status. The link between race/civil rights and overall human rights with queers is land some scholars have feared to tread. Lahey goes there, and with success. For the reality is that the legal arguments are the same.
Lahey notes that "private consensual adult gay sex was decriminalized in 1929" (26), so queers do not have to worry about the onus of criminal prosecution and incarceration. But of course this still leaves the larger civil problems around equality, immigration law, inheritance law, and same-sex marriage, as well as the widespread exclusion of queers from government censuses and other statistical surveys.
Lahey ends her well-researched and documented tome with a comparison to the laws of Canada's southern neighbor, the United States of America. Lahey is historical without being academic or dry. Her greatest gift is the clear connection and analysis of discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or other queer status and that based on race, sex, sexuality, and/or marital status. If one is seeking a template for analyzing and deconstructing queer discrimination, Are We "Persons" Yet? would be an excellent guidebook. Canada is similar to many industrial countries in its schizophrenic treatment of queers and other minorities. And until we are all "persons," our legal, social, economic, and political freedom is limited.
Whereas Persons focuses on the legal arena with a nod to social movements, as its title implies, Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality-Seeking, 1971-1995 focuses on actual social movements: Although Smith begins in 1971, the book focuses on "the ways in which the 1982 entrenchment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the constitution has influenced the political directions of the movement" (ix). The primary question is, how does legislation impact a social movement?
The movement was fledgling in 1971, but by the book's documented endpoint of 1995 external signs blossomed: organizing around AIDS and HIV, Pride celebrations in major cities, and the proliferation of lesbian and gay media. Smith compares the lesbian and gay rights movements against other social rights movements such as the women's movement and the disability rights movements. Clearly a key component to all movements in their quest for equality is to show their inherent humanness, their sameness yet acceptable differences. Smith concludes that laws like the Charter set the framework for social movements and allow "discourse, values, and self-understandings of movement actors" (156).
These two books work well in tandem to summarize, explain, and inform both the laws and social movements in Canada that lead to where the queer movement is today.
Akilah Monifa is a media trainer/public relations strategist at the SPIN Project in San Francisco, CA. She is also a freelance writer and a former law professor at New College School of Law.
Copyright 2001 The Lesbian Review of Books
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
