Archive for March, 2011

On Thursday, March 24th, Dr. Emma Cunliffe from UBC’s Faculty of Law led us in a fascinating discussion around evidence law and how feminism can help us re-conceptualize the law of evidence. The discussion starting with thought-provoking questions around the Rhodes case (more widely known as the “Justice Dewar Decision”): what knowledge gets into the justice system? How? And once its in, how does it get negotiated?

While evidence can be simply understood as a system of law with a set of rules, Dr. Cunliffe challenged us to think of evidence as proof, or more specifically, the logic, rationality and sources of information judges use in coming to their decisions. Too often, law students take findings of fact as just that – fact. But where does this information come from? Who does it exclude? And what does a court do with it? These questions are sometimes neglected as we learn the rules and tests that make up the substantive learning of evidence law, but they are important questions to interrogate as we consider how law is made, and on what terms.

Dr. Cunliffe noted that feminism has quite famously influenced rules of evidence, with one example being the Lavallee case. But as our discussion showed, feminism can also help us understand knowledge and the politics of knowledge. An example here is the work that feminists have done in Canada to enlarge the concept of reasonableness through the use of expert evidence. Yet the very notion of reasonableness leads to questions of common sense. Our discussion pondered what common sense means in law and the impact that it has on the trier of fact, while recognizing that there must be some notion of common sense in our legal system to ensure functionality. But common sense can also be equated with stereotypes. The point was raised that common sense notions of what makes a witness believable often fails to account for cultural differences, an example being that in some cultures it is rude to look people directly in the eye, but in Western society, this is thought to make someone look “shifty” or untrustworthy.

What feminism and substantive equality demand is that we challenge what is reasonable and rational at the point where inferences are drawn in decision making. This means that we must question the operation of common sense, even in places where it is not always visible.

With these ideas in mind, our discussion turned to the work Dr. Cunliffe has done on mothers who have been wrongly convicted of killing their children. The question here is if these cases have informed our understanding of what can go wrong in the same way that other miscarriages of justice have. It appears that the cases of wrongly convicted mothers are often chalked up to one “rogue” expert (a Charles Smith, or other equivalent), but this reasoning fails to account for how knowledge is used in this trials. Often, stereotypical reasoning is drawn upon by these experts, and these things make sense to a jury. They are common sense. They draw on stereotypical understandings of families. Feminism can operate here to enlarge our sense of how people behave and what is reasonable.

The discussion wrapped up with many important questions. In particular, we questioned the role of science. Where social framework evidence can be useful in expanding notions of reasonableness, it is considered “soft” science and less credence may be given. However, forensic science is often considered infallible, even where it is not. While judges are often not skeptical enough, some of the fault falls to lawyers to. After all, lawyers are also situated within their own sociological contexts, and more likely than not, will engage in their own processes of inference and reasoning as they determine what information is important and relevant to a case. Our role in how knowledge enters the legal system is a crucial one. The roundtable with Dr. Cunliffe helped highlight the need to not just learn and understand the substantive law in our doctrinal courses, but to go further and question and challenge it.

*Dayna Steinfeld is exactly 3 weeks from being done her second year of law at Robson Hall. Not that she’s counting. As co-chair of the FLF for this academic year, she was thrilled to wrap up the year with such a stimulating discussion.

Read Full Post »


What do you think?

Read Full Post »

The IWD march on Tuesday was fantastic. There was a big, loud and proud crowd marching down Broadway and Memorial – and many shouts and honks of support from vehicles passing by. There were placards demanding justice for missing and murdered Aboriginal women and for Sisters in Spirit. There were signs decrying Harper’s regressive stance on women and equality. There were signs shouting “My miniskirt does not equal consent!” The radical cheerleaders kept the chants going throughout.

To me, it is abundantly clear that these marches are still necessary. IWD is on one hand celebratory. After all, we’ve come a long way and our mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers achieved a lot in the last 100 years. Would I be in law school today without all the work they did? But there is still so much to do. One focus should be international, but it seems to go without saying that there is also still much to do here at home. Yet not everyone agrees with me on this front. Check out two Globe & Mail columns that debate the place of Canadian feminism today:



Read Full Post »

Find it here:


Read Full Post »

FLF members representing the FLF and LEAF Manitoba at the annual International Women’s Day March!

Read Full Post »

Happy 100th birthday IWD. The first IWD was run in 1911. The following history comes from www.internationalwomensday.com

“Following the decision agreed at Copenhagen in 1911, International Women’s Day (IWD) was honoured the first time in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on 19 March. More than one million women and men attended IWD rallies campaigning for women’s rights to work, vote, be trained, to hold public office and end discrimination. However less than a week later on 25 March, the tragic ‘Triangle Fire’ in New York City took the lives of more than 140 working women, most of them Italian and Jewish immigrants. This disastrous event drew significant attention to working conditions and labour legislation in the United States that became a focus of subsequent International Women’s Day events. 1911 also saw women’s ‘Bread and Roses’ campaign.”

IWD is a day for celebration. We’ve come a long way in 100 years. Its also pretty wonderful to take a day and just celebrate being women. But, its also a day to reflect on how much there still is to do, both here in Canada and also around the world. This article from the Globe and Mail is a beautiful and heart-wrenching look at how women experience life as women around the world.  What can we do for them? What can we do here at home to move closer to true equality? This video questions whether men and women in developed countries really are equals. What do you think?

What does IWD mean to you?

Read Full Post »

We are so pleased that this roundtable with Dr. Emma Cunliffe (UBC, Law) has been re-scheduled for March 24th from 12 -1 in room 308.

Don’t miss this opportunity to discuss the intersection of evidence law and feminism with an expert in the field. If you’d like to do some thinking in advance of the discussion, Dr. Cunliffe has suggested a short reading: What feminism can teach us about expert evidence. All students are welcome to attend – you do not have to have taken Evidence in order to enjoy and participate in this discussion.

Read more about the roundtable, and Dr. Cunliffe on the post for the originally scheduled discussion:


Read Full Post »

Come celebrate with us!

On March 8th, Winnipeg will celebrate the 100th year
anniversary of International Women’s Day by holding a march, organized
by numerous community organizations and interested individuals.

At 4:30 pm at The Union Centre (275 Broadway), four speakers (Mae
Louise Campbell, Perla Javate, Heather Bishop and Louise Simbandumwe)
will open the event. The march will start at 5:30pm and finish at the
University of Winnipeg Bulman Centre.

Attendees are encouraged to wear white, black, yellow, or red.
Winnipeg’s march will include chants by the Radical Cheerleaders, a
visual representation of women uniting in solidarity at the
Legislature, a performance by the Raging Grannies, and a community
feast at the University of Winnipeg’s Bulman Centre.

*Attendees are also encouraged to wear tube tops (over jackets because its still so bloody cold!) to the march as a symbolic gesture to speak out against the Justice Dewar decision.

Read Full Post »

Don’t miss this! Tonight at 9 pm on CBC’s Doc Zone: “The F Word: Who Wants to Be a Feminist?”

This doc is being presented in conjunction with the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day.

Find out more:


Read Full Post »