Suchergebnisse

This article examines how migrant and immigrant sex workers have been rendered invisible before the courts and parliament in the reform of laws regarding sex work in Canada. A discourse analysis of the expansive legal record in the Bedford case and the transcripts of Parliamentary debates and testimony before Standing Committees confirm the lack of nuanced discussion on how criminal law reform could impact migrant and immigrant sex workers. As such, while the case of Bedford and the resulting change in the law made by Parliament have been celebrated as a win for some sex workers as an acknowledgment, recognition and judicial validation of experiences by legal institutions of sex workers, a sub-group of women – migrant and immigrant sex workers – remain in the shadows. This article examines how law excludes migrant and immigrant sex workers; it is a starting point for research on how migrant and immigrant sex workers may participate in future legal reform.

This article examines how migrant and immigrant sex workers have been rendered invisible before the courts and parliament in the reform of laws regarding sex work in Canada. A discourse analysis of the expansive legal record in theBedfordcase and the transcripts of Parliamentary debates and testimony before Standing Committees confirm the lack of nuanced discussion on how criminal law reform could impact migrant and immigrant sex workers. As such, while the case ofBedfordand the resulting change in the law made by Parliament have been celebrated as a win for some sex workers as an acknowledgment, recognition and judicial validation of experiences by legal institutions of sex workers, a sub-group of women – migrant and immigrant sex workers – remain in the shadows. This article examines how law excludes migrant and immigrant sex workers; it is a starting point for research on how migrant and immigrant sex workers may participate in future legal reform.

Canadian refugee law has evolved substantially in the last two decades, especially when it comes to making findings of whether a state provides protection to a refugee claimant. Canadian refugee law is making problematic presumptions, increasing burdens on claimants, asking claimants whether they have done their due diligence, and accepting just the best efforts of a state to assuage concerns that protection is necessary. All of these measures have been adopted without consideration as to the true object and purpose of the refugee protection regime and the international law principles that support this regime. Currently in Canada, there is not only confusion as to what the refugee definition calls for in terms of assessing state protection but also the inconsistent application of various approaches, which gives rise to concerns that legitimate refugee claimants are being denied protection, especially those who make claims based on gender and sexual orientation. This article argues that the integrity of Canada's refugee protection regime is at stake and decision makers and judges should reconsider the path Canada has taken since Canada v Ward. The recommendation in this article is to eliminate presumptions, do away with the expectations that claimants need to exercise all due diligence, and accept nothing but effective state protection.

Random violence and general criminal risk—decision makers evaluating refugee claims are characterizing violence against women in this manner. The reduction of gendered violence, leading to the denial of refugee claims, occurs under the covert operation of Canada's consolidated refugee definition. Canada has received accolades for recognizing gender-related persecution. Since this recognition, Canada has consolidated its refugee definition, legislating a "complementary protection provision" in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Prior to 2002, risk assessments done just prior to the removal of persons asked whether persons would be returned to torture or cruel and unusual punishment. In 2002, this assessment was included in the refugee determination process. There has been little evaluation of this provision since then. This article examines the performative functions of Canada's complementary protection and finds the provision delimits gender-related claims in three ways. First, it does not fill the gaps left by the enumerated grounds system. Second, the provision encourages the production of harmful discourse on violence against women. Finally, it encourages decision makers to conflate the separate analyses (enumerated grounds and the complementary protection schemes), erroneously allowing factors such as the universality of oppression or violence to erode the enumerated grounds regime.

The author examines the burden on refugee claimants at the Immigration and Refugee Board in Canada to provide evidence that their home state cannot protect them. In particular, the paper discusses the growing trend of adjudicators taking de facto judicial notice of the fact that a country is democratic to make the finding that there is state protection for claimants. The author argues that the practice of labelling countries as democratic and making state protection findings upon the finding is a biased and unhelpful practice when evaluating the issue of whether state protection exists. The paper discusses what "democracy" means and the problems associated with defining it. It will discuss how judicial notice of whether a state is democratic can affect an analysis of state protection in the example of claimants fleeing domestic abuse in Mexico. ; L'auteure examine la charge pesant sur les demandeurs d'asile à la Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada de fournir la preuve que leur État d'ori-gine ne peut pas les protéger. En particulier, le présent article examine la tendance croissante des juges de faire automatiquement le constat judiciaire du fait qu'un pays est démocratique pour arriver à la conclusion qu'il y a protection de l'État pour les demandeurs. L'auteure fait valoir que la pratique d'étiqueter des pays comme démocratiques et d'en tirer des conclusions quant à la protection de l'État est une pratique biaisée et inutile lorsqu'il s'agit d'évaluer la question à savoir si la protection de l'État existe. L'auteure aborde le sens de la « démocratie » et les problèmes liés à sa définition. Elle explique comment le constat judiciaire voulant qu'un État soit démocratique peut affecter une analyse de protection de l'État dans l'exemple des demandeurs d'asile fuyant la violence domestique au Mexique.

AbstractCanada's current immigration, refugee, citizenship and temporary migration polices facilitate the production and maintenance of multitude forms of temporariness. The designation of temporary and precarious status means limited rights, conditionality and increased risk of abuse and exploitation. It also shapes persons' access to rights and services and their sense of belonging. The special section includes four original articles that employ a range of qualitative methods to delve into the issue of temporariness and its implications for migrants, Canadians, and the future of migration management in Canada. The authors call for repeals, amendments and the creation of innovative programmes that leads to pathways to permanent status. The contributions are intended to provide active, pointed, and practical recommendations that would eventually lead to an immigration programme that is efficient, secure, and complies with international human rights standards while eliminating instances of abuse and exploitation.

"This ambitious text explores the current state of Canada's evolving immigration system, surveyed in historic, social, and comparative contexts. Insightful commentary on racial, gender, and class dimensions contributes to a thorough and multi-faceted analysis.by publisher."--