Your search
Results 52 resources
-
Criminalization of sexual violence against women in intimate relationships must form a central part of the human rights agenda for achieving gender equality. According to a study by the United Nations Secretary-General, “[t]he most common form of violence experienced by women globally is intimate partner violence” including “a range of sexually, psychologically and physically coercive acts.” The World Health Organization reports that nearly one in four women in some countries may experience sexual violence perpetrated against them by an intimate partner. Other research suggests that approximately 40% of all assaulted women are forced into sex at one time or another by their male partners.
-
Ending the marital rape exemption in criminal law is a demand for legal equality and autonomy for women, rights that are enshrined in international human rights law. Drawing on international human rights law as a source of authority for challenging the marital rape exception in criminal law allows feminist and other social justice organizations, within their specific national and local contexts, to seek greater state action and accountability toward ending this form of violence against women and this violation of women’s human rights. In this reply, we challenge the arguments in the symposium that oppose or caution against criminalizing sexual violence in intimate relationships as a necessary legal strategy, and that refute our view that ending the marital rape exemption is required by international human rights law.
-
Sylvia McAdam, 2015 20-1 Justice as Healing, 2015 CanLIIDocs 257
-
As has long been recognized, the contract of employment depends on the commodification of labour power. Notwithstanding debates amongst political theorists and trade union activists about whether individuals should be viewed as self-owners, and whether it is possible to sell one’s capabilities without selling one’s self, the law does treat labour power as a commodity. There has been little research on the ways in which the law does so, however, for the simple reason that self-ownership of one’s laboring capacities is often taken as fact, as the starting premise for analysis, and treated as a necessary pre-condition for individual self-realization through contract. Moreover, proprietary and contractual forms of regulating work are often presented as diametrically opposed: a proprietary method of labour regulation is said to create a relationship of slavery, while contract is presented as an institution of choice. This paper argues that an analysis of labour power as property, and its relationship to contract, emphasizes that both contract and property are enmeshed in the legal regulation of waged employment. Examining the ways in which the courts have given shape to individuals' proprietary rights over their labour power, and have set the terms for its exchange, demonstrates that the limitations on employer's rights of control are not inherent to the contractual form. Instead, they often depend on wider social processes, such as production and labour processes, collective bargaining, and statutory regulation. Examining proprietary rights over labour power provides another window onto the malleability of the contractual form, and the degree to which political choices are made by courts and legislators in determining the terms of the employment contract. This paper therefore investigates the relationship between contract, and labour power as property. To do so the historical evolution of contractual limitations on employers’ rights of control will be canvassed, and the ways in which these limitations are now fraying. In particular, the development of the managerial prerogative from a property to a contract-based interest is described, and the ways in which concepts of working-time have operated, in theory, to separate in law the commodification of labour power from the commodification of self. Finally, the paper concludes by examining the ways in which these limiting mechanisms are beginning to disappear, as collective bargaining protections dissipate and the statutory protections are rolled back.
Explore
Author / Editor
- Anneke Smit (7)
- Brian Manarin (1)
- Christopher Waters (5)
- Claire Mummé (2)
- Daniel Del Gobbo (1)
- David Tanovich (1)
- Gemma Smyth (1)
- Irina Ceric (1)
- Jasminka Kalajdzic (2)
- Jeff Berryman (3)
- Joshua Sealy-Harrington (4)
- Laverne Jacobs (2)
- Mita Williams (2)
- Noel Semple (4)
- Pascale Chapdelaine (3)
- Richard Moon (3)
- Sujith Xavier (3)
- Sylvia Mcadam (2)
- Tess Sheldon (2)
- Vasanthi Venkatesh (4)
Resource type
- Blog Post (2)
- Book (7)
- Book Section (4)
- Journal Article (21)
- Magazine Article (1)
- Preprint (14)
- Report (1)
- Thesis (2)