Blog Archives

Finally - Canadian divorce available to non-resident queers

8/30/2013

Since same sex marriage became legal in Canada ten years ago, non-Canadian queers have been flocking here to marry.

That's all very well: but what happened if the spouses separated?

They learned to their shock and chagrin that though Canada would marry them, Canada would not divorce them. There was a requirement under the Divorce Act that a person had to be resident in a Canadian province for a year before they could file for divorce- a requirement impossible to meet for many non-Canadians.

The Divorce Act has now been amended to provide that non-residents who married in Canada can get a divorce. The new provisions came into effect August 14, 2013.

The requirements are that the spouses be living apart for at least one yer; neither of them lives in Canada when the divorce is applied for; both of the spouses are now living in a state in which divorce for same sex partners is not available because that state does not recognize same sex marriage.

The application for the divorce must be made in the same province where the marriage was performed.

0 Comments

How would this genderqueer man be treated under B.C. law?

8/24/2013

0 Comments

B. Scott was hired to be a fashion reporter on by a California TV network. But when he came to work wearing what they considered to be "women's clothes" they insisted first that he change into a blazer and slacks and pull his gorgeous long hair into a pony tail; then they terminated him.
Scott is filing a discrimination suit under California law which protects people from discrimination on the basis of gender, and his legal advisors say they expect he will succeed.
What would happen if that had happened to B.Scott in British Columbia?
It is hard to say.
B.C.'s Human Rights Code offers protection on the basis of 'sex', but there is no explicit protection on the basis of 'gender identity' or 'gender expression'. This has not been a problem for trans people in B.C. to date, all of whose claims have succeeded on the basis of 'sex' because 'sex' has been interpreted to cover protection for trans people.
The question is whether this genderqueer man - who identifies as male but presents in "women's" clothing, would be protected, or whether it is necessary to have 'gender expression' specifically listed as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Because there hasn't been a case like this so far it is impossible to say. However on the positive side there is a rule that says that human rights law should be given a 'fair, large and liberal' interpretation to protect the most people. Certainly anyone in this situation should file a human rights complaint on the basis of sex.
For more on this story: http://www.chicagodefender.com/index.php/culture/22787-she-s-the-law-why-b-scott-has-the-right-to-sue-bet-network-for-gender-discrimination-damage-to-reputation

0 Comments

That's not funny! Or is it?

8/13/2013

1 Comment

What do you think?Should the comedian at Zesty's Restaurant be permitted to harangue a lesbian in the audience by directing homophobic and sexist comments at her?
Is that "freedom of expression" for the comedian, or "freedom from harassment" for the audience member?
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that the comedian, Earle, had violated the Human Rights Code when he included homophobic and sexist zingers in his role as the MC of an open-mic night at Zesty's Restaurant on Commercial Drive in Vancouver. That decision was recently upheld by the B.C. Supreme Court. Earle and Zesty's were ordered to pay damage totalling $22,500.
The court held that, while Earle's freedom of expression was infringed, the infringement to protect against harassment on the basis of sex and sexual orientation was legally justifiable.
The case has been a controversial one with many commentators - including for example the queer magazine Xtra - taking the position that the complainants should get a life and find something more important to complain about.
What do you think?

1 Comment

Russian views on homosexuality

8/7/2013

0 Comments

A new Pew survey found that only 16% of Russians say yes to the question "Should homosexuality be accepted". No wonder the government's homophobic initiative is so popular.
The fascinating survey of attitudes toward homosexuality world-wide shows not only which countries say 'yes' (Canada 80%; Spain 88%, U.S. 60%) and which say 'no' (Nigeria 98%, Uganda 96%, South Korea 59%, China 57%) to the question.
The less religious a country, and the wealthier the country, the more likely it is that the country will have positive attitudes to homosexuality.
See http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

0 Comments

Married to an American? They can take you home now...

8/6/2013

0 Comments

U.S. citizens living abroad with their non-U.S. partners can now bring their partners home with them.
As a followup to last month's announcement permitting lesbian and gay Americans to sponsor their partners for permanent residence, the U.S. has announced that it will extend the same visa rights to same sex partners as to opposite-sex partners. So Americans can bring their partners home, or travel with them.
For the whole story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-usa-gays-visas-idUSBRE9710NT20130802

0 Comments

Trans Parent-cy

8/2/2013

1 Comment

To read a recent Ontario decision about the right of a trans parent to see her children, go to H.P. v P.L.C.
In that case, a transwoman was denied permission to see her children at all.
It was eight years since she had last seen her bio-children, conceived before her transition. During that eight years, she had been convicted of sexual assault on her wife and spent time in jail, where her gender dysphoria was diagnosed and she began her transition. Her ex-wife had divorced her and remarried.
Despite having an extremely low risk to reoffend, and despite having several glowing letters of support including one from her former father in law, the judge refused to let her see the children.
On the one hand, the judgement rests on standard considerations: the time since she had seen her children, the fact that she had let that time go by without trying to see them; the fact that the children didn't remember her. On the other hand, the judge's attitude to trans people suffuses the judgement.
Read the case and decide what decision you would have reached if you were the judge.

1 Comment

Finally - Canadian divorce available to non-resident queers

How would this genderqueer man be treated under B.C. law?

That's not funny! Or is it?

Russian views on homosexuality

Married to an American? They can take you home now...

Trans Parent-cy

Archives

Categories