International Law for Women

a resource for women's human rights advocates

Category: Women’s rights

  • Canada’s Fight Against Gender-Based Violence: Proposed Legislation Bill C-16

    Canada’s Fight Against Gender-Based Violence: Proposed Legislation Bill C-16

    A young woman in a dark ambiguous setting, illuminated by a blue light, expresses fear and distress. (AI-generated)
    A young woman in a dark ambiguous setting, illuminated by a blue light, expresses fear and distress. (AI-generated)

    Despite Canada’s strict equality-based anti-discrimination laws, in effect women and girls still face significant structural barriers, particularly in achieving protection from gender-based violence and in achieving justice when safeguards fail. Recently however, the Minister of Justice has tabled significant legislation that will amend the Criminal Code of Canada to better protect victims. Additionally, a Bill has been tabled in the Senate that will protect victims of intimate partner violence by extending support for national action. This article examines the international legal framework that support the major proposed amendments and examines their necessity within the Canadian context.

    Protection from violence is a human right. That right extends to both public and private spheres.  Yet the United Nations reports that “violence against women and girls remains one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world.”[i] Femicide is its most extreme manifestations. The Canadian Femicide Observatory reports that 189 Canadian women and girls were killed by violence in 2023[ii], 187 in 2024, and another 137 in 2025[iii].

    Legislative Acts:

    Recent legislation introduced in Canada, pertinent to violence against women, includes bills S-242 and C-16.

    S-242: Georgina’s Law

    An Act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence

    Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Fabian Manning

    First reading: December 2, 2025;

    Second reading December 11, 2025

    https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/S-242/first-reading

    In 2014 Georgina McGrath nearly lost her life to intimate partner violence due to the severity of her injuries; she has been fighting alongside Senator Fabian Manning since 2017 to change the laws to protect others from such violence. Bill S-242 provides for the continuation of support for national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence and femicide, to be led by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality. But that alone is not enough.

    C-16: Protecting Victims Act

    An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures);

    Introduced in the House of Commons and sponsored by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Sean Fraser

    First reading: December 9, 2025

    Debate: January 26, 2026 –

    https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-16

    Bill C-16 is an expansive piece of legislation spanning 166 pages of amendments to existing Acts. It would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Justice Act, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the National Defense Act, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child sexual abuse and exploitation material by persons who provide an Internet service, the Firearms Act, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

    Bill C-16 rightfully uses the gender-neutral term “victims” and covers harms that affect Canadians of all genders and ages. However, the content of the bill is reflective of issues that predominantly and adversely affect women, girls, and gender-diverse persons, thus constituting gender-based violence. (see Infographic 1)

    Infographic 1: Statistics Canada; Government of Canada; Accessed January 31, 2026. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/251028/cg-a001-png-eng.htm
    Infographic 1: Statistics Canada; Government of Canada; Accessed January 31, 2026.
    https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/251028/cg-a001-png-eng.htm

    Non-Discrimination:

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 26[iv], provides for equal protection of the law, subject to the principle of non-discrimination.

    Article 26 (ICCPR)

    All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

    The general principle[v] of non-discrimination is also found in other core legal human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) [vi].

    Article 2

    States Parties condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, agree to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating discrimination against women and, to this end, undertake… (e) To take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise.

    Violence against women is discrimination

    In 1992 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) adopted General Recommendation No. 19, which stated that “Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with men.”[vii] It further clarified that gender-based violence “includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty.”[viii]

    The Committee defined gender-based violence as “violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.”[ix] Additionally, “the underlying consequences of these forms of gender-based violence help to maintain women in subordinate roles and contribute to their low level of political participation and to their lower level of education, skills and work opportunities.”[x] This in turn undermines women and girls’ rights to education (Article 13) and to work (Article 6), which are protected under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, the poverty that women are kept in contributes to the increase of sex trafficking and other forms of exploitation, putting women and girls at further risk of violence and abuse.

    Criminal Code additions: coercive control and femicide

    The two most significant amendments to the Criminal Code that Bill C-16 provides for are to “create a new offence that prohibits engaging in a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct towards an intimate partner”. Bill C-16 also recognizes the murder of a female person as femicide, and as first degree murder, under certain circumstances, including:

    (i) the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,

    (ii) the murder is committed in the context of sexual violence,

    (iii) the murder is committed in the context of human trafficking,

          or

    (iv) the murder is motivated by hate

    Crucially, by recognizing coercive control as a criminal offence, femicide may be averted before it is committed. This is not just a matter of crime prevention – it is a matter of life and death.

    There is a growing movement among democratic nation States to criminalize coercive control, which moves beyond an incident-based model of intimate partner violence and instead recognizes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour that extends over a period. This also looks beyond acts of physical violence and considers non-physical violence.

    “Coercive control may involve behaving in ways that create or intensify power imbalances in the relationship, making an intimate partner dependent on and subordinate to the perpetrator. Coercively controlling actions could include creating economic dependency, reputational dependency, and dependency in social relations.”[xi]

    Research by Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Saskatchewan, Dr. Crystal Giesbrecht, reveals that “intimate partner femicide often emerges from abusive relationships marked by coercive control and intimate partner violence.”[xii] “In some cases, perpetrators completely dominate all aspects of the victim’s life. Coercive control often results in a constant state of fear, reinforced by threats as well as past experiences of violence. Dutton and Goodman (2005) explain ways that perpetrators control victims, including ‘creating the expectation of negative consequences, creating or exploiting the victim’s vulnerabilities, wearing down the victim’s resistance, and facilitating—and then exploiting—emotional dependency’ (pp. 748–749). The very nature of this form of abuse creates significant barriers to ending the relationship.”[xiii]

    Furthermore, “technological advancements have allowed perpetrators to increase their level of control even when they are not physically together, as well as continue their surveillance and harassment post-separation.”[xiv]  Bill C-16 adds the usage of ‘deepfakes’ and the threat of their usage, to the offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

    A man with headphones on watches his ex-girlfriend on multiple screens through the use of spy software. (AI-generated)
    A man with headphones on watches his ex-girlfriend on multiple screens through the use of spy software. (AI-generated)

    Research into coercive control reveals that “these behaviours also heighten the risk of lethality. In Australia, a study published in 2020 by the Domestic Violence Death Review Team in the state of New South Wales found all but one of the 112 cases of intimate-partner homicides analyzed were preceded by instances of coercive and controlling behaviour. In Canada, researchers who looked at femicides from 2015 to 2019 found behaviours such as stalking, intimidation, isolation and threats were frequent.[xv]

    “Several studies show that coercive control in a relationship increases the risk of serious or fatal violence, especially when the victim is trying to leave or has just separated from her partner. For almost 1 in 3 victims, murder or attempted murder was the first act of physical violence.”[xvi]

    Another adverse impact of gender-based violence is the psychological harm it perpetuates. According to a 2022 article by the Globe and Mail “Though coercive control is one of the least understood forms of violence, the psychological consequences of this kind of controlling behaviour can be long-lasting.”[xvii]

    A tragic and often over-looked adverse impact of abuse is the suicide rate of its victims. The Canadian non-profit organization Battered Women’s Support Services reports that “victims of domestic violence are up to three times more likely to attempt suicide”[xviii].

    Psychological harm manifests into physical harm. Therefore, the prevention of gender-based violence is simultaneously suicide prevention. Again, Bill C-16 is literally a matter of life and death.

    A crime against liberty

    Evan Stark, preeminent researcher and author of Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life (Oxford Press; 2007) suggests that coercive control is a liberty crime.

    I think we need a law that punishes offenders at the same level that we would punish people that take hostages, or kidnap people, because what we’re really dealing with, although the analogy’s by no means perfect, is a kind of domestic terrorism. A kind of domestic hostage taking in which the victim has no outside to escape to, because the supposed safe place, the relationship, the home, the family network, has been identified as the point of imprisonment and entrapment.”

    (“Power and Control – Domestic Violence in America”; 2010; Peter Cohn – Director, Producer)

    Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) proscribes that

    1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.[xix]

    Although Article 9 of the ICCPR is commonly used in reference to restrictions on liberty by State authorities, the Covenant is to be considered in its entirety. The preamble proscribes an obligation to individuals.

    “Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant”.[xx]

    The State has obligations to uphold the commitments of the Covenant, as stated in Article 2, paragraph 2.

    2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

    Bill C-16 would support this obligation in the context of coercive control.

    Ironically, one criticism of Bill C-16 argues that the right to liberty of perpetrators will be violated by the mandatory minimum sentencing for those convicted of crimes under the Protecting Victims Act. Deprivations of liberty by the State must be proscribed by law, proportional to the crimes, and necessary to protect the rights of others. That includes the protection of the rights of victims.

    Femicide is protected against under the right to life

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, declared that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”[xxi]

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) a legally binding instrument, reiterates that right in Article 6, paragraph 1 – “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

    The right to life entails obligations on the State that are both negative – not to arbitrarily deprive individuals of life – and positive – the duty to protect individuals from other individuals, also known as the duty to ‘protect’. Criminal law and justice arise out of this positive obligation.

    The United Nations Human Rights Council published General Comment No. 36 (2019), which clarifies the obligations of the State and the duty to protect life.

    18. The second sentence of article 6 (1) provides that the right to life “shall be protected by law”. This implies that States parties must establish a legal framework to ensure the full enjoyment of the right to life by all individuals as may be necessary to give effect to the right to life. The duty to protect the right to life by law also includes an obligation for States parties to adopt any appropriate laws or other measures in order to protect life from all reasonably foreseeable threats, including from threats emanating from private persons and entities. (…)[xxii]

    Those positive obligations are further articulated in paragraph 23:

    “The duty to protect the right to life requires States parties to take special measures of protection towards persons in vulnerable situations whose lives that been placed at particular risk because of specific threats or pre-existing patterns of violence. Such persons include human rights defenders (…) and victims of domestic violence and gender-based violence and human trafficking.”[xxiii]

    When unlawful deprivations of life occur, the right to life also entails an obligation to conduct an impartial investigation and to prosecute the perpetrators.

    “Any deprivation of life based on discrimination in law or in fact is, ipso facto, arbitrary in nature. Femicide, which constitutes an extreme form of gender-based violence that is directed against girls and women, is a particularly grave form of assault on the right to life.”[xxiv]

    A woman expresses extreme psychological distress as she screams while holding her hands to her temples. (AI-generated)
    A woman expresses extreme psychological distress as she screams while holding her hands to her temples.
    (AI-generated)

    The right to health:

    Violence against women is also a violation of the right to health. Health must be thought of as extending to both physical and psychological states. Recalling the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which proscribes the right to health[xxv].

    Article 12 (ICESCR)

    1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

    A woman who is perpetually unsafe or in a state of fear is at risk of compromised health, beyond physical injury resulting directly from violence. There has been extensive research finding links between chronic stress and increased morbidity and mortality. Stress is a reaction to a perceived threat; “chronic stress has a significant effect on the immune system that ultimately manifest an illness”[xxvi]. Ongoing threats impact the immune system and increase inflammation in the body, leading to illness and even autoimmune disorder.

    Furthermore, the effects of violence against women continue to create barriers preventing women from achieving substantial equality by affecting their fundamental social and economic rights, beyond the right to health. It also extends to the right to education and the right to work.

    If a woman is not safe, she cannot thrive.

    A woman tries to push someone's hands away from her throat. A much larger ambiguous figure looms in front of her, with arms extended towards her throat. (AI-generated)
    A woman tries to push someone’s hands away from her throat. A much larger ambiguous figure looms in front of her, with arms extended towards her throat. (AI-generated)

    The privacy argument

    Protection from violence is a human right that extends to both public and private spheres.  

    The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, confirms this in a framework of global norms and standards for national and international action. Article 1 defines violence against women as ‘any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life’[xxvii].

    Additionally, the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, aims to achieve gender equality through various targets to be achieved by 2030. SDG Target 5.2 seeks to “eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation”.[xxviii]

    The United Nations Office on Drug and Crime also provides a suitable response to the issue of the private sphere.

    “To effectively prevent femicides, targeted policies are needed that address the specific forms of gender-based violence perpetrated in the private sphere, as there are key differences in how intimate partner and other family member femicides occur.

    Although countries have made efforts to prevent femicides, such killings persist at worryingly high levels. In many cases, femicides are the tragic end to a pattern of ongoing violence, meaning that with the timely and appropriate intervention, they could be prevented.”

    Research shows that female intimate partner homicides are often linked to certain risk factors related to the person committing the crime or the situation surrounding the intentional killing. Common risk factors for intimate partner violence that could lead to femicide include: access to firearms, coercive control, previous history of violence and non-fatal strangulation, stalking, relationship separation and substance use, such as alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, combined with other underlying factors such as lack of social support and accumulation of stressful events.”[xxix]

    Critics of Bill C-16 rely on the right to privacy as one argument against government interference in private and intimate relationships. But the right to life is the ‘supreme right’, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, and therefore arguably more valuable than the right to privacy.

    International human rights law is moving towards a victim centered approach to criminal justice, which, as a global leader in human rights, Canada should implement.

    A young woman confidently looks into the camera; she is standing in a city street with a blurred Canada flag in the background. (AI-generated)
    A young woman confidently looks into the camera; she is standing in a city street with a blurred Canada flag in the background.
    (AI-generated)

    Conclusion:

    Whether or not the injustices that these bills seek to address affect you personally, they almost certainly affect some woman or girl that you know. Intimate partner violence is often kept secret due to the danger it poses and the attached stigma; its impact often only comes to light once it is too late.

    According to the World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus “Violence against women is one of humanity’s oldest and most pervasive injustices, yet still one of the least acted upon.” (…) “No society can call itself fair, safe or healthy while half its population lives in fear. Ending this violence is not only a matter of policy; it is a matter of dignity, equality and human rights. Behind every statistic is a woman or girl whose life has been forever altered. Empowering women and girls is not optional, it’s a prerequisite for peace, development and health. A safer world for women is a better world for everyone.”[xxx]

    While bills S-242 and C-16 and demonstrate encouraging initiatives, they are meaningless unless passed, implemented, monitored and adapted as necessary. Furthermore, in criminal law, they become dead letter unless adequately enforced. Impunity for violence against women and children has an enabling effect that if not resolved, will escalate in incidence. Progress is possible but is contingent on political will. At the time this article is published Bill C-16, the Protecting Victims Act has only completed the first state in the legislative process; it must move forwards before another life is lost. That life could be your own.

    Call to Action:

    Here’s how you can help. After reviewing the text of a bill, there are two options to participate in the process of supporting it.

    Write a letter to your Member of Parliament (recommended for everyone):

    • Expressing your opinions, personal experiences, recommendations, or legal arguments for or against a bill
    • Find your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/search
    • Your contact information must be included, as this determines your riding and legitimizes your communication

    Write a letter to a Senator that represents your province:

    Submit a brief (recommended for organizations and knowledgeable individuals):

    1. Submit a brief to the House of Commons:

    “A brief is a written submission that provides opinions, comments and recommendations on a subject being studied by a parliamentary committee. Any individual or organization may submit a brief to a committee of the House of Commons.”

    https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/guides/brief-e.html

    2. Submit a brief to a Senate Committee:

    “Senate committees regularly invite individuals, experts, groups and organizations, lobbyists, public servants and ministers of the Crown to appear before them as witnesses to receive information relevant to a bill they are considering or a special study they are undertaking. There are two ways to participate in a committee’s study: by giving oral evidence (testimony) or by submitting a brief (written evidence).”

    Click to access cmtes_how-to-participate-in-a-senate-study_final_2021oct_en.pdf

    [i] Digital violence is real violence. There is #NoExcuse for online abuse; International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women; United Nations online publication; November 25,2025.

    [ii] Call it Femicide 2024 Report; infographic report; Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability; https://femicideincanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2024Infographic-ENG-1.pdf

    [iii] Canadian Observatory for Justice and Accountability; https://femicideincanada.ca/

    [iv] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights 

    [v] ‘General principles’ (of international law) are legally recognized as legitimate sources of international law.

    [vi] Para. 1; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

    [vii] Para. 1; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

    [viii] Ibid.

    [ix] Para. 6; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

    [x] Para. 11; General Recommendation No. 19 (11th session, 1992), Violence against women; UN CEDAW Committee https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=3&DocTypeID=11

    [xi] https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/mapafvc-cbapcvf/review-analyse.html

    [xii] Flying under and through the radar: Tactics used by intimate partner femicide perpetrators to evade interventions; Martín Hernán Di Marco and Dabney P. Evans; International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Volume 82, September 2025, 100767. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1756061625000436?via%3Dihub 

    [xiii] Giesbrecht, Crystal J. 2024. “The Need for a Canadian Criminal Code Offence of Coercive Control”. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 9 (1):pages 33-39. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.362.

    [xiv] Carmen Gill, Ph.D. and Mary Aspinall, Ph.D. RESEARCH PAPER

    Understanding coercive control in the context of intimate partner violence in Canada: How to address the issue through the criminal justice system? Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Department of Justice Canada; 20 April 2020  https://www.canada.ca/en/office-federal-ombudsperson-victims-crime/publications/research-recherche/ucc-ccc.html#TOC-5-2 

    [xv] Ibid.

    [xvi] https://coercive-control.ca/content-library/coercive-control-danger 

    [xvii] Molly Hayes, Elizabeth Renzetti, and Tavia Grant; March 13, 2026. Coercive control can be a life or death issue in relationships. But few people even know how to recognize it, Globe and Mail.
    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-coercive-control-can-be-a-life-or-death-issue-in-relationships-but-few/

    [xviii] 4 Facts About Intimate Partner Violence and Suicide (World Suicide Prevention Day); September 10, 2024.  https://www.bwss.org/4-facts-about-intimate-partner-violence-and-suicide-world-suicide-prevention-day/ 

    [xix] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 1966; https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

    [xx] Ibid.

    [xxi] Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 1948; UN General Assembly https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights 

    [xxii] United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019.   https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

    [xxiii] I United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019.   https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36  

    [xxiv] Para. 61; United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6: Right to life; Sept. 3, 2019. (from A/HRC/20/16, para. 21.)  https://docs.un.org/en/ccpr/c/gc/36

    [xxv] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, United Nations.  https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights 

    [xxvi] Salleh MR. Life event, stress and illness. Malays J Med Sci. 2008 Oct;15(4):9-18. PMID: 22589633; PMCID: PMC3341916. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3341916/

    [xxvii] UNGA Res 48/104. Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993).  https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/48/104

    [xxviii] https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal5#targets_and_indicators 

    [xxix] Preventing femicide, page 19, UNODC and UN Women, Femicides in 2024: Global Estimates of Intimate Partner/Family Member Femicides (United Nations publication, 2025) https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-11/femicides-in-2024-global-estimates-of-intimate-partner-family-member-femicides-en.pdf

    [xxx] https://www.who.int/news/item/19-11-2025-lifetime-toll–840-million-women-faced-partner-or-sexual-violence 

  • Canadian legislation could improve women’s right to life

    Canadian legislation could improve women’s right to life

    The United Nations has declared that women’s rights are facing a global backlash affecting both public and private spheres, online and off. So, what is Canada, as a notable human rights leader, doing to progress women’s rights? In the spring of 2025, the Honourable Rechie Valdez became Minister of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE), thus reigniting hope for Canadian women in achieving substantive gender equality. In 2025 parliamentarians introduced several new bills in the Senate and House of Commons that would respect, protect and fulfill women’s human rights, as per international standards. As human rights are interrelated and interdependent, these bills, which focus on the health and safety of women, would operate collectively to reduce morbidity and mortality rates.

    The objective of this two-part article is not to replicate or replace research done by healthcare specialists or advocacy organizations, but rather to provide insight into the international legal framework that applies to the pertinent legislation. This article highlights the international commitments made by Canada to ensure the health of women. But health must be thought of as extending to both physical and psychological states. A woman who is perpetually unsafe or in a state of fear is at risk of compromised health, beyond physical injury resulting directly from violence. To that effect, legislation focused on providing safety for women through protection for victims of gender-based violence, will follow in an upcoming article.

    Vial with specimens
    Photo by Artem Podrez on Pexels.com

    Part I – Health:

    The right to adequate health is a global norm in international human rights law. Since 1976, Canada has been a State party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which mandates the right to heath.[i]

    Article 12

    1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

    2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

    (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

    (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

    (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other disease

    (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

    Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is subject to the principle of non-discrimination. However, women have been significantly underrepresented in health research for decades, thereby creating sex and gender-based disparities in health outcomes. Those disparities in turn create barriers to the enjoyment of other fundamental rights, including the right to education, the right to work, the right to political participation, and the right to life – the foundation of all other rights and fundamental freedoms.

    The right to life, proscribed under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, carries both positive and negative obligations owed by the State party – the negative obligation to respect life by abolishing arbitrary killings, the positive obligations to protect life from threats by third parties, and by fulfilling certain conditions necessary to sustain life.

    The following bills, by remediating historical health inequities, could progress women’s substantive equality by fulfilling conditions necessary for their enjoyment of the right to life with dignity.

    Bill S-204: National Framework on Heart Failure Act[ii]

    An Act to establish a national framework on heart failure

    Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Yonah Martin

    First reading: May 28, 2025

    Second reading: December 9, 2025

    Assigned to the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for study.

    The preamble of Bill S-204 recognizes that, “…Whereas heart failure is the third-leading cause of hospitalization in Canada — following childbirth and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) — and remains a leading cause of death, particularly among women, for whom it is second only to cancer and ischemic heart disease”.

    Bill S-204 would require that the Minister of Health “develop a national framework to support improved access to heart failure prevention, diagnosis, management and evaluation to ensure better health outcomes…”[iii].

    The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada reports that heart disease and stroke are the primary cause of premature death for women in Canada, yet two thirds of clinical research on heart disease and stroke have been focused on men. Using the average male body as the prototypical patient ignores the evidence that many conditions present differently in females and some gender diverse persons – heart attacks are one example and those differences are costing women their lives.

    While Bill S-204 does not explicitly name women outside of the Preamble, the Content section,(paragraph 2 (a)), provides that the framework “ensure equitable access across all demographics and regions”. Additionally, Bill S-243, an Act to establish a national framework for women’s health in Canada, if passed would complement Bill S-204.


    Bill S-243: National Framework for Women’s Health in Canada Act[iv]

    An Act to establish a national framework for women’s health in Canada

    Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Danièle Henkel

    First reading December 9, 2025

    Debate at second reading in Senate: As of February 5, 2026

    Bill S-243 provides the support necessary for the Minster of Health to develop a national framework to “support improved health outcomes and health access for women, equitable investment in women’s health research and innovation and health-focused entrepreneurship driven by women”[v].

    (International Legal scope follows “The necessity”)

    a side view of a woman wearing face mask and bouffant cap
    Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko on Pexels.com

    The necessity

    Although women live longer on average than men,[vi] Canadian women spend 24% more time living in poor health and disability than men.[vii] Health issues that exclusively or disproportionately affect women, are significantly under-funded, under-researched, and under-treated. For example, 80% of individuals with an autoimmune disease are women, yet twice as many male participants are used in clinical trials. Furthermore, Harvard Health reports that “70% of those affected by chronic pain are women, whereas 80% of pain research is conducted on males”.(sic)[viii]

    In research and health care, sex matters (although not exclusively). The female body is a complex, dynamic system of inter-related structural and physiological systems including sex-specific hormones and chromosomes, distinct from males and therefore requiring specific research.

    Most research on female health has focused primarily on sexual and reproductive health and maternal, newborn and child health. Only recently have conditions such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), formerly known as polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), pelvic floor dysfunction and other conditions of the female reproductive system, become more broadly recognized. With scant research, millions of reproductive age women and gender diverse persons suffer in pain for years before even receiving an accurate diagnosis.

    Menopause, additionally, has been ignored in 99% of pre-clinical age-related studies[ix], despite being inextricably linked to aging in females. Menopause is also strongly associated with different types of dementia, including vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s. “Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is marked by pronounced sex differences in pathophysiology and progression.” According to the Alzheimer’s Society, around twice as many women have AD than men. However, clinical trials in AD include eight times more male participants than female participants.[x]

    Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

    In Canada women were routinely excluded from clinical trials until 1997. According to Global Data Healthcare, drug interactions, optimum dosage and side effects of pharmaceutical treatments may differ according to the sex of the patient, yet females are underrepresented in phase 1 clinical trials of pharmaceuticals.[xi]

    Trial participation matters because in cancer, for example, “multiple bodily factors contribute to how the disease develops, progresses and responds to treatment, and many of these factors relate to sex. (…) Between 2003 and 2016, females represented less than 10 per cent of participants in lung and pancreatic cancer trials, despite accounting for more than 40 per cent of the diagnoses.”[xii] Additionally, while 20% of all cancer research funding goes to breast cancer, comparatively, funding for gynecological cancers – cervical, ovarian and uterine – are consistently underfunded despite their higher mortality rates. Breast cancer now has a 5-year survival rate of 89%, whereas the ovarian cancer survival rate is only 44%[xiii].

    Furthermore, chronic pain conditions are also impacted by the gender health gap. A data analysis conducted between 2004 – 2018 on over 20,000 individuals with fibromyalgia, found that 88.8% of the sufferers were women and the mean age was 48.[xiv] Fibromyalgia is one of the most underfunded diseases per patient, worldwide. Its root causes are still poorly understood and overlapping comorbidities make it difficult to diagnose and prone to stigmatization. Thus treatment is limited to alleviating the symptoms, which include debilitating widespread chronic pain, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, without addressing a root cause.

    Other underfunded, female dominant conditions include myalgic encephalomyelitis (formerly chronic fatigue syndrome), headaches, migraine, osteoporosis and eating disorders.[xv] Migraine, for example, is twice as prevalent in females as in males, which is thought to be explained by sex hormones, and therefore a ‘woman’s disease’. That gender bias and stigmatization of migraine is further perpetuated by the funding disparity.[xvi]

    Lack of understanding and lack of funding is a vicious, self-perpetuating circle. Evidently, more must be done to ensure health research into conditions and diseases unique to or disproportionately impacting women. Additionally, with multiple factors affecting women’s health, there is a need for diverse disaggregation of data using both sex and gender[xvii], as well as age and other characteristics, such as ethnicity and socio-economic status. This intersectional data collection would allow healthcare to truly move beyond the ‘one-size fits all’ approach, and even beyond a binary approach.

    Where there is insufficient data or research, there is no adequate treatment or, significantly, prevention for disease. Consequentially, the substantive inequalities in health care create significant barriers from obtaining substantive equality in other rights-based contexts, such as the right to education, to work, to political participation, and the right to life.

    International legal scope

    In 2000 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights published its General Comment No. 14, clarifying the scope of Article 12 on the right to health, under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights . Recognizing the structural inequality in health care, the Committee emphasized the need for a national action plan to fulfill women’s right to health. That recommendation was over 25 years ago.

    21. To eliminate discrimination against women, there is a need to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy for promoting women’s right to health throughout their life span. Such a strategy should include interventions aimed at the prevention and treatment of diseases affecting women, as well as policies to provide access to a full range of high quality and affordable health care, including sexual and reproductive services. A major goal should be reducing women’s health risks, particularly lowering rates of maternal mortality and protecting women from domestic violence.[xviii]

    The Committee articulated the requirement for a gendered perspective. (At the time, sex and gender were frequently conflated as being synonymous.) [xix]

    20. The Committee recommends that States integrate a gender perspective in their health-related policies, planning, programmes and research in order to promote better health for both women and men. A gender-based approach recognizes that biological and socio-cultural factors play a significant role in influencing the health of men and women. The disaggregation of health and socio-economic data according to sex is essential for identifying and remedying inequalities in health.

    According to the WHO’s 2024 report on Health Inequality Monitoring, data “can be said to be disaggregated when they are broken down according to a dimension of inequality.” Therefore, using both sex and gender disaggregated data[xx],as they are not synonymous, would be most conducive to an intersectional approach while fulfilling the UN legal criteria. Additionally, this approach aids the World Health Organization (WHO), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other global NGOs in their research.

    aged happy women making video call online on smartphone
    Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

    Canada is also a State party to the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which it ratified in 1981. The CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 24 (on) Article 12 of the Convention, adopted in 1999, states the following:

    11. Measures to eliminate discrimination against women are considered to be inappropriate if a health-care system lacks services to prevent, detect and treat illnesses specific to women.[xxi]

    The CEDAW Committee provided the following recommendations for government policy that would considers women’s health at all stages of life.

    29. States parties should implement a comprehensive national strategy to promote women’s health throughout their lifespan. This will include interventions aimed at both the prevention and treatment of diseases and conditions affecting women, as well as responding to violence against women, and will ensure universal access for all women to a full range of high-quality and affordable health care, including sexual and reproductive health services.

    To that effect, States have only recently begun to facilitate support for menopause, due in part to the rising number of women living longer. (see Figure 1) Age is one of the protected characteristics increasingly recognized throughout human rights legal instruments. It is reiterated in CEDAW’s General Recommendation No. 27 on older women and protection of their human rights (2010) as “one of the grounds on which women may suffer multiple forms of discrimination”, [xxii] thereby recommending that statistical data on menopause be age and sex disaggregated.

    Figure 1: Absolute numbers of women in menopausal transition (45-60 years) according to world regions between 1951 and 2021 (source: United Nations 2022).

    Additionally, CEDAW recommends the following, according to the principle of non-discrimination.


    30. States parties should allocate adequate budgetary, human and administrative resources to ensure that women’s health receives a share of the overall health budget comparable with that for men’s health, taking into account their different health needs.

    Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

    Conclusion:

    The right to health is a collective human right that States have committed to respect, protect and fulfil. Furthermore, it is linked to the right to life, which is necessary for the enjoyment of all other human rights.

    In January of 2025 the World Economic Forum in collaboration with McKinsey Health Institute, a think-tank on global economic healthcare trends, produced the insight report Blueprint to Close the Women’s Health Gap: How to Improve Lives and Economies for All. The key insight was that addressing nine specific conditions could increase the global GDP by $400 billion by 2040. [xxiii]

    On October 22, 2025, an article by the McKinsey Health Institute reported that closing the women’s health gap in Canada could “potentially boost the country’s economy by $30 billion annually by 2040”[xxiv]. As Canadian sovereignty is under attack through financial coercion, this is a catalyst incentivizing the government to support women’s healthcare. Improved healthcare also affects an individual’s overall lifetime earnings, decreasing income disparity, and thereby improving a woman’s individual ability to thrive.

    In 1986 the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Right to Development (resolution 41/128). It reminded States that the objective of development is for the “constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom”[xxv]. That message has been largely forgotten.

    Although both the right to development and the right to health are subject to progressive development, the world is decades behind in progress for those rights benefiting women equally in comparison to men, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination. To address structural barriers, women’s equality rights must exist not just on paper, but in practice, with State support.

    (Subscribe at the link on the bottom of page for the Part II of this article, on legislation addressing women’s safety.)

    Call to Action

    After reviewing the text of a bill, there are two options to participate in the process of supporting it.

    Bill S-204: National Framework on Heart Failure Act

    Bill S-243:National Framework for Women’s Health in Canada Act

    Write a letter to your Member of Parliament (recommended for everyone):

    • Expressing your opinions, personal experiences, recommendations, or legal arguments for or against a bill
    • Find your MP here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/search
    • Your contact information must be included, as this determines your riding and legitimizes your communication

    Write a letter to a Senator that represents your province:

    • Expressing your opinions, personal experiences, recommendations, or legal arguments for or against a bill
    • Find your provincial Senators here: https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/  
    • Your contact information must be included, as this determines your riding and legitimizes your communication

    Submit a brief to a Senate Committee

    (recommended for organizations and knowledgeable individuals):

    “Senate committees regularly invite individuals, experts, groups and organizations, lobbyists, public servants and ministers of the Crown to appear before them as witnesses to receive information relevant to a bill they are considering or a special study they are undertaking. There are two ways to participate in a committee’s study: by giving oral evidence (testimony) or by submitting a brief (written evidence).”

    Click to access cmtes_how-to-participate-in-a-senate-study_final_2021oct_en.pdf

    [i] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, United Nations.  https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights 

    [ii] National Framework on Heart Failure Act, Bill S-204 – First Session, Forty-fifth Parliament, Senate of Canada; 2025.
     https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-204  

    [iii] Para. 3 (1) Development; National Framework on Heart Failure Act, Bill S-204 – First Session, Forty-fifth Parliament, Senate of Canada; 2025. https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/bill/S-204/first-reading

    [iv] National Framework for Women’s Health in Canada Act; Bill S-243; 1st Session, 45th Parliament, Senate of Canada; 2025. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/s-243

    [v] Para. 2 (1) Development; pg. 2, National Framework for Women’s Health in Canada Act; Bill S-243; 1st Session, 45th Parliament, Senate of Canada; 2025. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/S-243/first-reading 

    [vi] Differences across the lifespan between females and males in the top 20 causes of disease burden globally: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021; Volume 9, Issue 5, May 2024; The Lancet; Vedavati Patwardhan, PhDa∙ Gabriela F Gil, MPHb ∙ Alejandra Arrieta, MIDPb ∙ Jack Cagney, MScb ∙ Erin DeGraw, MPHb ∙ Molly E Herbert, MScb ∙ et al.
     https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(24)00053-7/fulltext

    [vii] McKinsey Health Institute; Closing the women’s health gap: Canada’s $37 billion opportunity. (October 22, 2025). https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/closing-the-womens-health-gap-canadas-37-billion-dollars-opportunity 

    [viii] Harvard Health Publishing; Women and pain: Disparities in experience and treatment (Nov. 9, 2017) https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/women-and-pain-disparities-in-experience-and-treatment-2017100912562 

    [ix] Gilmer, G., Hettinger, Z.R., Tuakli-Wosornu, Y. et al. Female aging: when translational models don’t translate. Nature Aging , 1500–1508 (Dec. 5, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-023-00509-8

    [x] GlobalData Healthcare; Women are underrepresented in trials for conditions that predominately affect them; June 26, 2023.  https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analyst-comment/women-underrepresented-trials-conditions/?cf-view   

    [xi] Ibid.

    [xii] We can’t defeat cancer without acknowledging the differences between men and women; Isy Godfrey; October 24, 2023; The Institute of Cancer Research.  https://www.icr.ac.uk/research-and-discoveries/cancer-blogs/detail/science-talk/we-can-t-defeat-cancer-without-acknowledging-the-differences-between-men-and-women 

    [xiii] Cancer-specific stats 2025; Canadian Cancer Society in collaboration with the Government of Canada. https://cdn.cancer.ca/-/media/files/research/cancer-statistics/2025-statistics/2025_cancer-specific-stats.pdf?rev=659842a56b7748129ca562088cc7e971&hash=BF1A42D8561EC68D584500DD0F2FAF23&_gl=1*6gg2kk*_gcl_au*MTI4ODA2NjE5MS4xNzY5ODI3Mjc1

    [xiv] Exploring gender differences, medical history, and treatments used in patients with fibromyalgia in the UK using primary-care data: a retrospective, population-based, cohort study. The Lancet Rheumatology; Vo. 4, Sup. 1, September 2022, Page S20; Cardiff U.K.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S266599132200296X 

    [xv] Mirin AA. Gender Disparity in the Funding of Diseases by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. J Women’s Health (Larchmt). 2021 Jul;30(7):956-963. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2020.8682. Epub 2020 Nov 27. PMID: 33232627; PMCID: PMC8290307. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8290307/

    [xvi] Casas-Limón J, Quintas S, López-Bravo A, Alpuente A, Andrés-López A, Castro-Sánchez MV, Membrilla JA, Morales-Hernández C, González-García N, Irimia P. Unravelling Migraine Stigma: A Comprehensive Review of Its Impact and Strategies for Change. J Clin Med. 2024 Sep 3;13(17):5222. doi: 10.3390/jcm13175222. PMID: 39274435; PMCID: PMC11396411. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11396411/#sec5-jcm-13-05222 

    [xvii] It “is important to highlight is the divergent terminology of sex and gender which, conventionally, are mistakenly used as synonyms. Sex refers to the biological and genetic features of individuals, whereas gender is intended as the social perspective of human beings concerning expressions, behaviors, and social roles. The latter is considered a personal choice and can generate a nonbinary range of gender identities.” Tokatli, M. R., Sisti, L. G., Marziali, E., Nachira, L., Rossi, M. F., Amantea, C., Moscato, U., & Malorni, W. (2022). Hormones and Sex-Specific Medicine in Human Physiopathology. Biomolecules, 12(3), 413. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12030413

    [xviii] E/C.12/2000/4: General Comment No. 14 on the highest attainable standard of health (2000), The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/ec1220004-general-comment-no-14-highest-attainable

    [xix] “Gender interacts with but is different from sex. The two terms are distinct and should not be used interchangeably. It can be helpful to think of sex as a biological characteristic and gender as a social construct. Gender and Health, questions and answers”; 24 May 2021; https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/gender-and-health

    [xx] “Gender interacts with but is different from sex. The two terms are distinct and should not be used interchangeably. It can be helpful to think of sex as a biological characteristic and gender as a social construct. Gender and Health, questions and answers”; 24 May 2021; https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/gender-and-health

    [xxi] CEDAW General Recommendation No. 24: Article 12 of the Convention (Women and Health)

    Adopted at the Twentieth Session of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; 1999 (Contained in Document A/54/38/Rev.1, chap. I)

    [xxii] Paragraph 2; General recommendation No. 27 on older women and protection of their human rights UN. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; 2010; CEDAW/C/GC/27; https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/711348?ln=en&v=pdf

    [xxiii] World Economic Forum. (2025, January). Blueprint to Close the Women’s Health Gap: How to Improve Lives and Economies for All. https://www.weforum.org/publications/blueprint-to-close-the-women-s-health-gap-how-to-improve-lives-and-economies-for-all/

    [xxiv]  Closing the women’s health gap: Canada’s $37 billion opportunity. McKinsey Health Institute; October 22, 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/closing-the-womens-health-gap-canadas-37-billion-dollars-opportunity 

    [xxv] Declaration on the Right to Development; UNGA 41/128, adopted December 4, 1986. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-right-development 

  • Backsliding of women’s rights and threats to political participation

    Backsliding of women’s rights and threats to political participation

    The current global state of women’s rights

    At the 69th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women, held at the United Nations Headquarters in NYC this past September, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that “women’s rights are under siege. The poison of the patriarchy is back – and it is back with a vengeance”.

    The global condition of women is deteriorating. In fact, the United Nations predicts that it will be almost 300 years before gender equality is achieved worldwide if it continues at the current pace. Regressive laws are rolling women’s back rights by decades in a variety of countries, from liberal democracies like the United States, electoral autocracies like Russia, and in (now) closed autocracies like Afghanistan. They have found something in common, which is the desire to oppress women. The global trend of de-democratization threatens to bring women’s progress down with it. State hostility towards women’s movements threatens to replace existing women’s equality organizations with state-operated agencies aimed at preserving the traditional family and women’s gendered roles as mothers and caretakers.

    The principle of non-discrimination, which includes women,is provided for in the nine core international human rights treaties. According to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 2, paragraph 1:

    Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

    A diverse group of resolute-looking women in suits stand in front of a neoclassical building.
    (AI generated image)

    Threats to women’s political participation

    “A move towards authoritarianism is often accompanied by a resurgence of patriarchal values, with devastating effects on gender equality. Leaders with authoritarian leanings will encourage intolerance of and misogyny against women in public life, with the goal of dividing and cultivating fear. As countries inch towards authoritarianism, this backlash against women is noticeable.”[i]

    On June 14th of 2025 Minnesota State Representative and Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortman, along with her husband, were the victims of a politically motivated assassination. Police found a hit list in the car of the shooter that included the names of almost 70 pro-abortion advocates and lawmakers.[ii]

    On November 5th of 2025, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum was sexually assaulted by a man as she made a public appearance; the incident was captured on video that went viral.[iii] Acknowledging that this was an indication of the extensive sexual violence that Latin American women face daily, she is pressing charges and is calling for a review of sexual harassment laws.

    In January 2019 an AI-generated ‘deepfake’ porn video of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez circulated online, traumatizing the Democratic Congresswoman. In response, as a survivor of sexual violence, she spoke out publicly against deepfakes as “a way of digitizing violent humiliation”, citing violations of privacy and autonomy.[iv] Fighting against this injustice that so many young women are subjected to, she promulgated the Take it Down act[v], which the U.S. Senate passed into law on May 19, 2025.

    In October 2022, the home of U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was broken into where her husband was brutally bludgeoned on the head with a hammer by an assailant intent on finding her. Prosecutors say the man had “a violent plan to kidnap Nancy Pelosi, to hold her hostage, to break her kneecaps, to teach her a lesson.”[vi] Paul Pelosi survived the attack, after surgery and a long recovery, but the incident highlighted the hostile level that political rhetoric has reached and the vulnerability of lawmakers and their families. Shortly afterwards Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi stepped down from her role as Speaker of the House and Democratic Leader, after serving over 40 years in politics with the honour of being the first and only female speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    The law

    None of this is justifiable. And all of it is designed to silence and drive women, including younger generations, out of the politics and the public sphere. Political participation is a human right. And domestic law must conform to international law. To that effect Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by 175 States by the end of 2025[vii], provides that:

    Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

    (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

    (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;

    (c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.

    In addition to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), women’s political participation is also provided for under the Action for Equality, Development and Peace – Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of 1995. Strategic objectives include Women in Power and Decision Making.[xxv]

    Strategic objective G.1. –

    Take measures to ensure women’s equal access to and full participation in power structures and decision-making. Actions to be taken.

    Strategic objective G.2. –

    Increase women’s capacity to participate in decision-making and leadership. Actions to be taken.

    “Actions to be taken” refers to taking positive action, also known as affirmative action, to account for a history of structural inequality and systemic discrimination until substantial equality is achieved.

    According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), globally women occupy only 27.2% of parliamentarian seats. And while there was a significant increase between 2000 – 2015, that progress has slowed, rising by a mere 0.3% between 2024 and 2025, which was a landmark year for elections.[viii] The intimidation, harassment and violence perpetrated against female parliamentarians has been a pressing issue for the (IPU) since 2016. The IPU has created various counter-measure initiatives aimed at achieving gender parity in parliaments, hosting an annual Summit of Women Speakers of Parliament, advocating best practices and publishing Guidelines for the elimination of sexism, harassment and violence against women in parliament[ix].

    Threats against women parliamentarians arise from both the public and from their political parties, driving them out of politics and undermining political participation. This negatively impacts women’s representation and diminishes democracy itself.

    De-democratization and the autocratization of the USA

    International human rights law emphasizes the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. They work together to strengthen one another, but in contrast, the loss of one right can lead to the loss of others.

    The Varieties of Democracy Institute developed theVarieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Research Project using data collection and 600+ indicators to measure and conceptualize democracy into core principles and components, applying them to every country in the world. Components include gender equality, credible elections, and freedom of expression, as indicated below in infographic 1. “In 2019 autocracies outnumbered democracies for the first time since 2001”[x] sparking concerns over a “third wave of autocratization”.

    Infographic 1: V-Dem Global State of Democracy Indices
    Infographic 1: V-Dem Global State of Democracy Indices

    The V-Dem 2024 Democracy Report listed the United States as an “autocratizing” country on the Liberal Democracy Index, registering substantial and significant deterioration compared to its 2014 level.[xi] Analysis from the Global State of Democracy Initiative, an inter-governmental organization, also reports backsliding of democracy in the United States.[xii] Furthermore, the United Nations Human Rights Council recently adopted a resolution citing a lack of cooperation from the United States, who was due for their Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2025. The UPR is an interactive peer-review process of a States’ human rights performance that every Member State of the UN is required to participate in every 5 years. However, the Trump administration announced that it would be boycotting the UPR.[xiii] This is clearly an affront to international human rights law.

    According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a U.S. based nonpartisan law and policy organization, “America’s longstanding and abysmal record on myriad gender equity markers has been the true harbinger for our downgraded status.”[xiv]

    De-democratization and regression of women’s rights in the United States have impacted their rights to privacy (Art. 17 ICCPR), health (Art. 12 ICESCR), and life (Art. 6 ICCPR), especially regarding maternal mortality. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 reversed Roe v. Wade, which set abortion rights back almost 50 years. In 2026, women in South Carolina could face up to 30 years in prison for having an abortion if Bill S. 323 – the Unborn Child Protection Act – is passed. Additionally, Montana’s Bill HB 609 would make traveling out of state for an abortion a crime, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. This breaches the right to movement, protected under Article 12 of the ICCPR, and discriminates since men do not face similar penalties. These challenges to women’s rights emphasize the need for stronger progressive female representation in parliament.

    Additionally, some Republican leaders have even suggested that women be denied the right to vote, contrary to international law. Article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), for example, guarantees equal political participation. But U.S. Pentagon Chief, Republican Pete Hegseth, supports a law to end women’s voting rights. The ‘one household, one vote’ system aims to disempower women and regress to a patriarchal order. Likewise, the SAVE ACT (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.R. 8281), tabled in 2025, imposes unreasonable obstacles to voting for anyone who has undergone a name change, including married women, trans people and adoptees. Political participation, including the right to vote, is a human right and must be free from discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.

    Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), Article 7:

    States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right:

    (a) To vote in all elections and public referenda and to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies;

    (b) To participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government;

    (c) To participate in non-governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country.

    The growing threat against women’s equal access to human rights and fundamental freedoms is of concern to all women, as ideologies rapidly spread across the internet. Of further concern is the U.S. Trump Administration’s expressed desire to “make Canada the fifty-first state”, thereby potentially subjecting Canadian women to the same misogynistic and systemic overhauling of the U.S. legal order.

    Denying women political agency is a form of patriarchal protectionism that in effect subordinates women while strengthening the control of male State and non-State actors alike. But a robust democracy depends on the inclusion of a diversity of voices. Women’s rights are regarded as the canary in the coal mine of democracy because of their inextricable link.

    The interconnectedness of human rights

    Human rights experts recognize the interconnectedness and interdependence of human rights. Oppressors strategically take aim at women’s political rights, such as the right to public participation which is closely connected to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, precisely because without those rights women are unable to promote or protect other rights. This is particularly true of freedom of expression, our most valuable right – it is a cornerstone of democracy integral to the protection and promotion of other rights. Consequently, not only are female parliamentarians at high risk of intimidation, harassment and violence, but so are female journalists and women’s human rights defenders, both from state and non-state actors alike. This violates the right to freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 19, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

    “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

    According to the International Knowledge Network of Women in Politics “(t)hese challenges discourage women from actively participating in politics and can lead to self-censorship.”[xix] The women that we depend on to inform us in the media and to represent our interests in policy-making at various levels of governance are silenced and driven out of office. Furthermore, freedom of expression includes both the right to impart and the right to receive information. Therefore, the rights of all women are indirectly violated by attacks on female journalists, parliamentarians, and human rights defenders.

    A group of (Afghan) women in blue burqas standing outside; 2023; source – Faruk Tokluoğlu, Pexels

    Illegitimate restrictions to political rights threaten social rights, such as equal access to education or healthcare, which are proscribed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Political Rights (1966). This is exactly what the women and girls of Afghanistan have been facing since the Taliban regained control in 2021 – no education past grade 6, they cannot be examined by a male doctor, nor are females permitted to study or practice medicine, including midwifery and nursing; thus, their rights to education, work, healthcare, and right to life are all threatened. Widows are reduced to begging on the streets to feed their children and themselves. As intended by the Taliban, women and girls are condemned to a life of economic dependence and poverty. These extreme forms of patriarchal protectionism deny women both political and personal agency. Furthermore, they are only permitted to leave their homes ‘out of necessity’ as proscribed by law. Afghan women are facing a severe mental health crisis due to the denial of their fundamental rights and freedoms. Experts “said that their plight was among the worst in the world.”[xx]

    First invisible, and now silent, Afghan women have been erased from public life. The latest backlash to women’s rights in Afghanistan attacked the right to public participation and freedom of expression in the most extreme manner – denying women the right to have their voices heard in public. Under Article 13 of The Law on the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice[xxi] women are forbidden even from merely speaking aloud with each other and from singing in public.

    (3) “A woman’s voice is considered intimate and should not be heard singing, reciting, or reading aloud in public”; and (8) If an adult woman leaves her house out of necessity, she must cover her voice, face, and body”.

    Fighting against these draconian measures, though confined to the home, women and girls took to online education. Consequently, the Afghan government cut off fibre optic internet in September 2025[xxii], denying access to information, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, thus severing the last means of communication that women and girls had with the outside world. Women’s human rights defenders are calling the sum of these human rights violations ‘gender apartheid’.

    It hasn’t always been that way. Afghan women were given the right to vote in 1919.[xxiii] And in 2020, Afghan women held over 25 per cent of seats in Parliament and could run for president.”[xxiv] Women are now banned even from working in civil society organizations, national and international NGOs including the UN, despite the country’s major humanitarian crisis. Now the Taliban, acting as the de facto authority in Afghanistan, are erasing women completely from public life – policies consistent with patriarchal autocracies that chip away at women’s rights, forcing them back into the home and to a life of servitude as mothers and caregivers. Without women in public life, the rate of child marriage has skyrocketed, and consequently, so have maternal mortality rates. Disturbingly, Afghanistan is just one of the many States where women are experiencing a systemic backlash – a stark reminder of the fragility of women’s and girls’ rights.

    Afghan women in 1927; source: Commons

    Collective compliance

    It is natural to feel helpless in the face of such situations. When human rights violations occur on a massive scale at the hands of the State there is a diffusion of responsibility and unwillingness to challenge the State. No single individual feels compelled to take on the responsibility or costs of litigation to challenge the wrongful conduct in court. Conversely, an individual who is the sole victim of a human rights violation would likely pursue justice on their own volition. Thus, human rights violations of a broad scope are often the most challenging to reverse. Individual responsibility may be out of reach for mass human rights violations, but collectively they are not. Solidarity is imperative. Furthermore, when a human rights violation is facilitated by law, we tend to trust that it is compliant with international law, especially in democratic States.

    Why international law matters

    Knowledge is power. Understanding international law allows for holding State authorities accountable to their legal obligations arising from treaties with other States and, specific to human rights treaties, to all individuals under their jurisdiction. When these provisions are violated through acts or omissions it’s crucial to know how to enforce accountability through judicial and non-judicial mechanisms at domestic, regional, and international levels.

    States must protect and promote the right to political participation, ensuring it is meaningful, effective, and inclusive with a real impact on decision-making. Additionally, domestic laws that lead to the loss of rights contradict the international legal principle of non-retrogression of human rights.

    Women must defend their rights to public life and participate in policy making at all levels of governance from civil society organizations to the highest diplomatic posts of international organizations. This is imperative both to protect and to promote women’s human rights and democracy itself, especially in the face of increasing autocratization.

    Returning to the UN Secretary-General’s warning at the 69th Session of the Commission of Women – “the poison of the patriarchy is back – and it is back with a vengeance” (…), “but there is an antidote”, he continued, (and) “that antidote is action”. We all have an important role to play in 2026 and beyond.

    [i] Bergsten, S., and Lee, S. A. 2023.“The Global Backlash against Women’s Rights: A Stark Reminder on International Women’s Day.” Human Rights Watch Dispatches [blog], 7 March. https://www.hrw.org/news /2023/03/07/global-backlash-against-womens-rights. Accessed 4 April 2023.

    [ii] A ‘formidable public servant.’ Who was Melissa Hortman, the Minnesota state representative assassinated in her home?; Boyetter, Chris; CNN US; June 14, 2025.  https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/14/us/melissa-hortman-minnesota-assassination 

    [iii] Mexico president to seek charges after being groped on the street; Grant, Will; 5 November 2025; https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9pgev02pno 

    [iv] Ocasio-Cortez, Lee, Durbin, Graham Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation to Combat Non-Consensual, Sexually Explicit Deepfake Imagery; May 21, 2025; press release: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-lee-durbin-graham-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation  Accessed Nov. 21, 2025.

    [v] Introduced in Senate (01/16/2025) Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act or the TAKE IT DOWN Act; 119th Congress (2025-2026); Accessed December 19, 2025 https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146 

    [vi] Paul Pelosi details attack and arduous recovery while on stand in DePape federal trial; Kop, Jeffrey, CNN Politics; Nov. 13, 2025.  https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/13/politics/paul-pelosi-david-depape-trial 

    [vii] Ratification Status for CCPR – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx?Treaty=CCPR&Lang=en 

    [viii] Page 2, paragraphs 1 and 5;  https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reports/2025-03/women-in-parliament-1995-2025  

    [ix] Guidelines for the elimination of sexism, harassment and violence against women in parliament; 2019; Inter-Parliamentary Union. https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reference/2019-11/guidelines-elimination-sexism-harassment-and-violence-against-women-in-parliament

    [x] Abstract; Inexorable Force or Dying Wave? The long term trends of democratization and the third wave of Autocratization; David Randahl University of Gothenburg, Varieties of Democracy Institute: Working Paper No. 152. March 2025. https://v-dem.net/media/publications/WP_152.pdf 

    [xi] Figure A7. Countries by score on V-Dem’s Liberal Democracy Index (LDI), page 60; Democracy Report 2025, V-Dem Institute.

    [xii] Global State of Democracy Initiative: International IDEA; https://www.idea.int/democracytracker/ Visited November 2025.

    [xiii] Human Rights Council reschedules human rights review of the United States of America; regrets “non-cooperation” with UPR mechanism; 07 November 20205, United Nations Human Rights Council; Geneva;

    https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/11/human-rights-council-reschedules-human-rights-review-united-states-america?sub-site=HRC

    [xiv] Women’s Rights and Democracy are Inextricably Linked; Jennifer Weiss-Wolf; March 16, 2022l https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/womens-rights-and-democracy-are-inextricably-linked

    [xv] DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL; CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1392. Argued December 1, 2021—Decided June 24, 2022; https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

    [xvi] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Argued December 13, 1971; Reargued October 11, 1972; Decided January 22, 1973; https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

    [xvii] Establish criminal offense of abortion trafficking; House Bill No. 609; Montana Legislative Services; HB:609: February 2025 https://bills.legmt.gov/#/laws/bill/2/LC3410?open_tab=bill

    [xviii] Who’s questioning women’s right to vote?; Mariel Padilla, Grace Panetta and Mel Leonor Barclay; AZ Mirror; The 19th, August 12, 2025. https://19thnews.org/2025/08/pete-hegseth-doug-wilson-women-voting/

    [xix] Report on Webinar: Women’s Political Participation in the Digital Age; March 4, 2025.

    https://iknowpolitics.org/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20Webinar%20Women%20in%20Politics%20-%20Digital%20Age.pdf

    [xx] Afghanistan: Taliban ‘may be responsible for gender apartheid’ says rights expert; UN News; 19 June 2023; https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/06/1137847 

    [xxi] The Propagation of Virtue and Vice Law; Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan; Ministry of Justice, Official Gazette; August 2024. https://www.afghanistan-analysts.org/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/Law-on-Virtue-and-Vice-Basic.pdf

    [xxii] Internet Shutdown In Afghanistan Threatens Women’s Education And Human Rights; Dr. Ewelina U. Ochab , Forbes Magazine; September 21, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2025/09/21/internet-shutdown-in-afghanistan-threatens-womens-education-and-human-rights/ 

    [xxiii] Unveiled: A History of Afghan Women’s Rights; UN Photo;  https://media.un.org/photo/en/photo-essays/unveiled-history-afghan-womens-rights

    [xxiv] FAQs: What it’s like to be a woman in Afghanistan in 2025; UN Women; 7 August 2025; https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/faqs/faqs-afghanistan Accessed December 25, 2025.

    [xxv] Action for Equality, Development and Peace – Platform for Action; Women in Power and Decision Making  https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/decision.htm 

  • When abortion is legal but inaccessible: an analysis under international law

    When abortion is legal but inaccessible: an analysis under international law

    Women’s reproductive freedoms are rapidly regressing and facing increasing restrictions around the globe. Women in the United States, Poland and Malta are dying due to restrictive laws and lack of accessibility. And according to the European Citizens’ Initiative, My Voice, My Choice: For Safe and Accessible Abortion more than 20 million women in the EU do not have access to safe, affordable abortion. Conversely, in Canada abortion is legal and covered by primary healthcare. However, on July 25th, 2025, women’s advocacy organizations across the nation sounded the alarm in a Joint Statement to the new Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney warning of the regressive impact that proposed austerity measures will have on women’s rights and gender equality. The budget for the Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) Department proposed 80%[i] less funding over each of the next four years as compared with the 2025-26 budget. The impact will be felt not just in the WAGE Department, but in local feminist organizations, women’s shelters, sexual assault services and more, including abortion facilitation services. Canadian women living in rural and remote areas often lack the means of access to safe, legal abortions due to the unavailability of the necessary healthcare services in their regions; the scope of this impact will likely be extended given the circumstances. In the context of reduced accessibility and austerity measures, what legal arguments might women’s rights advocates depend upon? The following is a legal analysis of the international human rights obligations pertinent to the situation in Canada, which may also apply to other States with the same obligations.

    AI generated image of a young woman sitting on the floor looking sadly contemplative; the background is a domestic interior but is blurred

    The Right to Health – Art. 12 of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

    The ICESCR provides for the right to the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”[ii].

    Article 12

    1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

    2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:

    (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;

    (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;

    (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;

    (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

    While the fundamental right to health is subject to progressive development, States should nevertheless ensure that it is moving towards its full realization, as stated in Article 2 of the Covenant.

    Non- Discrimination

    Article 2 paragraph 2 of the ICESCR provides for non-discrimination in the implementation of the Covenant – “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.

    Non-discrimination is not subject to progressive development – it must be respected immediately upon accession to the Covenant. However, according to the World Economic Forum “we still face wide gaps in research and treatment ability for areas that are unique to women”[iii], which is in contravention of Art. 2, para. 2 ICESCR. Maternal health, and abortion are just two of many areas of treatment that pertain exclusively to the health of persons of female sex (females). Even if a law doesn’t single out females in fact, if there is no equivalent adverse effect on males, then the law may be found to be discriminatory.[iv] Health inequality is a result of systemic discrimination against women and gender diverse persons, and it must be compliant with international law.

    In 2000, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Art. 12), according to which:

    “To eliminate discrimination against women, there is a need to develop and implement a comprehensive national strategy for promoting women’s right to health throughout their life span. Such a strategy should include interventions aimed at the prevention and treatment of diseases affecting women, as well as policies to provide access to a full range of high quality and affordable health care, including sexual and reproductive services. A major goal should be reducing women’s health risks, particularly lowering rates of maternal mortality and protecting women from domestic violence. The realization of women’s right to health requires the removal of all barriers interfering with access to health services, education and information, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health. It is also important to undertake preventive, promotive and remedial action to shield women from the impact of harmful traditional cultural practices and norms that deny them their full reproductive rights.” (author’s emphasis)

    Pregnancy can be both a direct and indirect cause of harm to women. Maternal morbidity and mortality are direct consequences of pregnancy, especially for adolescents. Indirectly, lack of access to safe abortion services can result in the administration of unregulated and unsafe abortions that can cost a woman or girl her life. Furthermore, sex or gender-based violence and femicide can be tragic indirect consequences of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy by an intimate partner or family members.


    As a State party to the Convention of Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Canada submitted its tenth periodic report as proscribed by Article 18 of the Convention. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, in their 2024 Concluding Observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada[v] recommended that Canada “ensure access to legal abortion services in all provinces and territories, including for women from disadvantaged groups”. Furthermore, the Committee cited “the persistent barriers in the public health system hindering access to abortion care, disproportionately affecting women from disadvantaged groups, women in remote and rural areas and undocumented migrants”[vi].

    Canada’s counterargument

    Canada argues that it has one of the world’s lowest populations densities with just 4.6 people per km2 [vii] per km2, second only to Russia. Extending all aspects of healthcare across a territory of almost 10,000,000 km2 [viii] is challenging and expensive. Consequently, the Canada Health Act (1985), section 3, provides that “it is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.”[ix] (author’s emphasis) But constitutional law must be in alignment with international law.

    Royalty free map of Canada by Picryl

    Positive obligations of the State

    The right to health requires positive obligations from the State including the duty to fulfil and the duty to promote.

    The duty to fulfil the right to health requires due attention to the four A’s: availability, accessibility, adequacy and acceptability. The acceptability of healthcare, which is also known as quality, is explained by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO “considers several aspects of quality, including whether Universal Health Care (UHC) is timely – reducing wait times and harmful delays – and equitable – providing care that does not vary in quality on account of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic location, and socio-economic status”[x]. Reducing harmful delays for abortion is essential.

    The duty to promote, in the case of reproductive healthcare, means ensuring availability of education and information on access to necessary services including contraception, family planning, adoption, emergency contraception and medical abortion options.

    Territorial scope

    Although Canada is a federal State which is divided into provinces and territories with a decentralized administration of healthcare under each, any obligations on the State apply to its entire territory. This rule of law is affirmed in several sources of international law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), Art. 29 on the territorial scope of treaties[xi].

    In its General Comment No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) addresses the devolution of powers.

    “…The decentralization of power, through devolution and delegation of Government powers in both unitary and federal States, does not in any way negate of reduce the direct responsibility of the State party’s national or federal Government to fulfil its obligations to all women within its jurisdiction. (…) States parties have to make sure that the devolved authorities have the necessary financial, human and other resources to effectively and fully implement the obligations of the State party under the Convention. (…) Furthermore, there must be safeguards to ensure that decentralization or devolution does not lead to discrimination with regard to the enjoyment of rights by women in different regions.”

    Essentially, the State (Canada) may be found responsible for acts or omissions by provincial authorities that violate human rights.

    Key Human Rights Inquiries and case law

    Inaccessibility of healthcare provisions can be a cause of indirect discrimination and of de facto or substantive inequality. This has been affirmed through UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies and case law alike.

    According to the CEDAW Committee’s General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19, paragraph 18“Violations of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, such as forced sterilization, forced abortion, forced pregnancy, criminalization of abortion, denial or delay of safe abortion and/or post-abortion care, forced continuation of pregnancy, and abuse and mistreatment of women and girls seeking sexual and reproductive health information, goods and services, are forms of gender-based violence that, depending on the circumstances, may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”[xii]

    The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) considered a communication[xiii] submitted Amanda Jane Mellet against Ireland in 2013. She was a married women who found out in the twenty-first week of pregnancy that her foetus had congenital heart defects that would be fatal, either in utero or shortly after birth. Mellet was deeply concerned over the potential suffering of her baby and considered abortion to be the best option. However, abortion was illegal in Ireland even if the impairment would be fatal.

    “2.4 On 28 November 2011, she flew with her husband to Liverpool and the following day she received medication at the Women’s Hospital to begin the process of terminating her pregnancy. On 1 December, she received further medication to induce labour. She was in labour for 36 hours and on 2 December she delivered a stillborn baby girl. Still feeling weak and bleeding, she had to travel back to Dublin, only 12 hours after the delivery, as they could not afford to stay any longer in the United Kingdom. (1) There is no financial assistance from the State or from private health insurers for women who terminate pregnancies abroad.”[xiv]

    (…)

    “3.3 (…) The travel abroad was also a significant source of added anxiety and exposed her to obstacles which impinged on her physical and mental integrity and dignity. She had to make preparations for the travel; was deprived of the support of her family; had to stay in a foreign and uncomfortable environment while in Liverpool; and had to spend a sum of money which was difficult for her to raise. While waiting at the airport to fly home, only 12 hours after the termination, she was bleeding, weak and light-headed.”[xv]

    The HRC found Ireland in violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides a non-derogable right which states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”[xvi].

    The Committee also found that Ireland violated article 17 of the ICCPR, which prohibits interference with private life, and article 26 which guarantees equality before the law.

    In the context of Mellet v Ireland, the State of Ireland prohibited and criminalized abortion expect in cases where the mother’s life was at risk and furthermore declined to provide information on resources where an abortion could legally be performed given the extenuating circumstances. The Irish law provided no access to remedy and denied Mellet post-abortion care, including grievance counselling, which they only provided to mothers who had delivered a stillborn foetus.

    The circumstance of travelling 218 km to access a legal abortion, as did Mrs. Mellet, is entirely conceivable given Canada’s vast territorial expanse. Additionally, how far along in pregnancy a woman is can limit the number of healthcare facilities available to perform the medical abortion. According to Abortion Access Tracker “because of limitations to residents of certain regions, as well as overwhelming demand while being severely under-resourced, there is low availability of abortion care after 20 weeks in Canada.” Therefore hypothetically, in cases that are sufficiently analogous, Canada may too be found in violation of the Convention Against Torture, of which it ratified in 1987. (The U.S. is even more likely given the current circumstances; even though the U.S. hasn’t ratifed the treaty, the prohibition of torture has a jus cogens status, a status of non-derogability, and has become a part of customary international law. )

    This obstacle to the right to health in Canada adversely affects women and girls from rural and remote regions. And without any funding for travel expenses, including meals, accommodation, potential airfare or ferry costs, lost time from work, and childcare costs, lack of financial support will significantly and adversely affect women and girls from lower socio-economic statuses.

    Canadian non-profit organizations like Abortion Care Canada and Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights have been providing support to help women facing barriers to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom. But the Liberals have released a draft budget for the next few years in Canada, with a notable 80% decrease in funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) due to the expiration of time-limited spending, without renewal. If abortion access is already an issue in 2025, what will it be like in 2026 or 2027? Abortion Care Canada states that the change in funding not only impacts the ability to provide services but may result in full organizational closure.[xvii]

    Consequences to abortion inaccessibility

    The United Nations Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has expressed concern over the potentially life-threatening consequences of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions and preventable maternal deaths[xviii]. And, according to a study by Doctors without Borders/Medicins sans Frontieres on unsafe abortions “the life-threatening consequences include severe hemorrhage, sepsis (severe general infection), poisoning, uterine perforation, or damage to other internal organs. A woman may require urgent hospital care for a blood transfusion, major reparative surgery, or a hysterectomy—the complete, and irreversible, removal of the uterus.”[xix]

    In October of 2025 the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution that addresses Preventable maternal mortality and human rights[xx]. The Council noted with concern that “the risk of maternal mortality is higher for adolescents and highest for girls under 15 years of age and that complications in pregnancy and childbirth are a leading cause of death and severe morbidity among adolescent girls in low- and middle-income countries, acknowledging that the issue also persists in high-income countries.”[xxi]

    The obstacles to obtaining a legal abortion can result in the some of the same adverse outcomes as it does in States where abortion is illegal, including attempts at unsafe abortion, maternal death, susceptibility to remaining in an abusive relationship, increased vulnerability to lack of education and/or lack of employment, loss of financial independence and stability, suicide and infanticide. If they survive, the cost of an unwanted pregnancy may be a lifetime of hardship for mother and child alike.

    In addition to the cost of an unwanted pregnancy on an individual and child, the community and ultimately the State pay a price too. Support may start with a pre-natal shelter[xxii], natal supplement[xxiii], infant formula[xxiv], and other supplemental support. Then there is the standard Canada child benefit (CCB) at up to $7,997 per year for each child under 6 and $6748 per year for each child aged 6-17, as well as provincial income assistance (in B.C. $1405 per month for a single parent with one child[xxv]), totalling approximately $25,000 annually for a single parent with a young child. This cost to Canadian taxpayers is significantly higher than the cost of accommodating access to abortion services or preventative measures including education and contraception.

    Recommendations by International Human Rights Treaty Bodies

    The United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) conducted a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Canada’s human rights performance in 2023. The issue of inaccessibility of abortion services was cited in both the Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on Canada[xxvi] and in the Report of the Working Group[xxvii], with concerns expressed by Iceland and Norway. Canada responded to the recommendations of the Working Group as “noted”[xxviii] – a vague acknowledgement that makes no promises.

    Additionally, the treaty monitoring body for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), a core human rights legal instrument which Canada ratified and acceded to in 1976, expressed the same concerns. In the Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada[xxix] the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provided these recommendations to Canada:

    51. The Committee welcomes the information provided by the delegation on measures taken to facilitate access to legal abortion services. It remains concerned, however, at disparities in access to such services and to affordable contraceptives (art. 12)

    52. The Committee recommends that the State party ensure access to legal abortion services in all provinces and territories. The Committee also recommends that the State party ensure that physicians’ conscientious objection does not impede women’s access to legal abortion services. The Committee also recommends that affordable contraceptives be made accessible and available to all, and in particular those living in remote areas and those living in poverty. The Committee refers to its General Comment No. 22 (2016) on the right to sexual and reproductive health.

    Furthermore, Canada has been urged to ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in the interest of enabling the political participation of citizens and NGOs alike. Women’s rights advocacy groups should also continue to encourage ratification of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR as it would enable individuals and groups to file complaints to the Committee in cases of State non-compliance with the Covenant, following exhaustion of local remedies.

    Conclusion:

    Could Canada be found in violation of Article 12 (the right to health) of the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights? Or worse?

    When the UN treaty monitoring bodies, such as the CEDAW Committee or the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights find that a States’ actions or omission are not in conformity with their treaty obligations, they will consider the circumstances of each specific case. Whether or not a States’ actions or omissions were the result of extraordinary circumstances that are considered permissible or not, would be up to the Committee to decide. Hence, it is only if the State’s treaty performance is challenged that the ruling would emerge.

    [i] Table 7: Planned three-year spending on core responsibilities and internal services; Planned Spending and human resources; Women and Gender Equality Canada’s 2025-26 Departmental Plan; Government of Canada website: https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/transparency/departmental-plans/2025-2026.html#toc4  Accessed Sept. 14, 2025  

    [ii] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; 1966; adopted by the General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI)

    [iii] Women’s health: Why is the health of at least half the global population so often overlooked? Deeptha Khanna; January 2, 2023; https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/01/women-health-gap-davos-2023/ (Accessed August 27, 2025)

    [iv] See for example Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28, [2020] 3 S.C.R. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18510/index.do

    [v] Pg. 15; paragraph 38 (e); CEDAW Concluding observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada; UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/10; October 30, 2024.

    [vi] Pg. 14; paragraph 37 (e); CEDAW Concluding observations on the tenth periodic report of Canada; UN Doc. CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/10; October 30, 2024.

    [vii] Hannah Ritchie and Edouard Mathieu (2019) – “Which countries are most densely populated?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://ourworldindata.org/most-densely-populated-countries’ [Online Resource] Accessed October 24, 2025.

    [viii]  https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/discover-canada/read-online/canadas-regions.html  Accessed October 24, 2025.

    [ix] Section 3;  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-6/page-1.html#h-151484  Accessed October 30, 2025.

    [x] Core components of the right to health; Key facts; Human Rights; WHO; December 1, 2023; https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-rights-and-health#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20health%20includes,goods%20and%20services%20for%20all  (Accessed Aug 21, 2025)

    [xi] Article 29, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969); Entered into force on 27 January 1980.

    United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331 https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf

    [xii] Para. 18, page 7; General recommendation No. 35 on gender-based violence against women, updating general recommendation No. 19; UN CEDAW Committee; CEDAW/C/GC/35; 26 July 2017.

    [xiii] Human Rights Committee; Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2324/2013;CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013; distributed 17 Nov. 2016;  https://docs.un.org/en/CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 

    [xiv] Ibid, para. 2.2 and 2.4; page. 2.


    [xv]  Ibid, para. 3.3, page 3.

                      1 The author states that they spent €3,000 in total, including the €2,000 fee they paid for the procedure.

    [xvi] Art. 7,Part II, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights; adopted by UN General Assembly res. 2200A (XXI) 1966; https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

    [xvii] https://abortioncarecanada.ca/the-autonomy-fund/  Accessed October 25, 2025.

    [xviii] Para. 2; CEDAW/C/OP.8/PHL/1; https://www.ohchr.org/en/stories/2015/06/un-womens-committee-makes-inquiry-sexual-and-reproductive-health-rights-philippines (accessed August 29, 2025)

    [xix]  Unsafe abortion: A preventable danger; Unsafe abortion is one of the five leading causes of maternal mortality, and the only one that is preventable. Medicins sans Frontieres; March 7, 2019; https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/latest/unsafe-abortion-preventable-danger#:~:text=For%20women%20who%20use%20these%20unsafe%20methods%2C,complete%2C%20and%20irreversible%2C%20removal%20of%20the%20uterus.  Accessed Sept. 28, 2025

    [xx] Resolution A/HRC/60/L.20/Rev.1 https://docs.un.org/en/a/hrc/60/l.20/rev.1 Adopted by the Human Rights Council; 60th Session, October 2025.

    [xxi] Ibid. Preamble, page 4, paragraph 7.

    [xxii] “If you are pregnant, you may be able to get money to secure or maintain stable housing before your child is born. You must have no spouse and have no other dependent children.” https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/income-assistance/on-assistance/supplements  Accessed Sept. 15, 2025.

    [xxiii] “If you are pregnant or have an infant less than thirteen months old, you may be able to get an extra $80 per month.” Ibid.

    [xxiv] For your child’s first 12 months, you could get money for: Regular infant formula. This is when the child has a medical need for regular infant formula; Specialized infant formula. This is only if your child has a medical condition that requires special formula. You may be able to get this longer than 12 months if it’s medically required; Ibid.

    [xxv] https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/family-social-supports/income-assistance/on-assistance  Accessed Sept. 15, 2025.


    [xxvi] Pg. 7; point 66 sub-heading “Right to health”; Summary of stakeholders’ submissions on Canada – Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; UN document A/HRC/WG.6/44/CAN/3; September 4, 2023.

    [66. JS3 stated that, although abortion was a decriminalized health-care service, many people lacked access to the public health system entirely and others faced prohibitive barriers to abortion care, including travel costs, long wait times, immigration status and intimate partner violence.119 (Joint submission 3 submitted by: The Sexual Rights Initiative, Ottawa (Canada); Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights; Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic; Justice for Migrant Workers; J4MW-YWCA Hamilton – The Community Research Platform at McMaster University, Sexual Rights Initiative)]

    [xxvii] Pg. 16, points 37.186 (by Iceland) and 37.187 (by Norway); Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Canada; UN document A/HRC/55/12; December 19, 2023.

    [xxviii] Pg. 2 (Recommendations and Canadian Position); Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Canada – Addendum – Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review; UN Doc. A/HRC/55/12/Add.1; March 15, 2024.

    [xxix] Pg. 9; paragraphs 51 and 52; Concluding Observations on the sixth periodic report of Canada; E/C.12/CAN/CO/6; March 23, 2016.

  • Does Canada’s Online News Act interfere with freedom of expression under international law?

    Does Canada’s Online News Act interfere with freedom of expression under international law?

    Women of diverse ages and ethnicities discussing thoughtfully around a laptop

    During a time of radical political transformation of the global landscape, knowledge is power – yet for Canadians, freedom of expression has been impaired since Bill C-18, the Online News Act, reached royal assent on June 22, 2023[i]. Freedom of expression is a core value of democracy and therefore must be carefully guarded.

    The Act proposed a regime whereby digital intermediaries, including search engines and social media platforms, would be regulated by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and must bargain with eligible Canadian news businesses to provide compensation when their news content is shared via links on these intermediaries. The intention is for tech giants to contribute to the sustainability of the Canadian news market. However, in an ongoing dispute between the Government of Canada and U.S. based non-State actor Meta Platforms Inc., Meta has argued that they already provide significant value through referral traffic for those news publishers and therefore refuse to pay compensation. In protest Meta has been blocking content from legacy Canadian news agencies from being seen or shared by platform users for over two years now, as many Canadians have noticed. Google intended to take similar measures but reached an agreement with the Government of Canada in November 2023[ii]. Regardless of which entity is at fault, State or non-State actor, the implementation of Bill C-18 and its resulting dispute is in effect breaching international human rights standards, specifically freedom of expression.

    As the Minister of Canadian Heritage, whose department is responsible for Bill C-18, is aware, Canada acceded to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Optional Protocol in 1976. Article 19, paragraph 2 of the Covenant provides that

    “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

    Article 19 makes clear that freedom of expression extends to everyone, not just the press, and that it concerns both imparting and receiving information. But Canadians are currently unable to receive news from reliable sources while using popular social media platforms. Therefore, our right to receive information is impaired. We are also unable to comment on news articles, therefore impairing our right to impart information. Additionally, our right to political participation is impaired, all of which are essential to both democracy and women’s rights.

    While there are certain permissible restrictions on freedom of expression, according to Art. 19 para. 3[iii] of the ICCPR, this situation does not meet the criteria. These restrictions are not necessary for the respect or reputation of others, for the protection of national security, of ordre public, or for public health or morals. And although the restrictions Canadians face resulting from Bill C-18 are not restrictions de jure, they are restrictions de facto.

    Would a court consider the same criteria for restrictions in fact, as it does for restrictions in law? According to the Government of Canada’s analysis on Section 2 (b), “3. Does the law or government action at issue, in purpose or effect, restrict freedom of expression?”[iv]:

    ii) Effect:

    Even if a purpose is compatible with section 2(b), an individual may be able to demonstrate that the effect of the government action infringes their section 2(b) right. In this situation, the individual must show that their expression advances one or more of the values underlying section 2(b), e.g., participation in social and political decision making, the search for truth and individual self-fulfillment (Irwin Toy Ltd., supra; Ramsden, supra). While more recent Supreme Court decisions still refer to this principle of showing the effect of government action, the Court does not appear to apply with a great deal of vigor the requirement that an individual show an advancement of values, tending instead to easily find a restriction of section 2(b).

    If a court concludes that the government action, in either purpose or effect, infringes section 2(b), it will then consider whether the limit on free expression is justifiable under section 1.

    Therefore, regardless of the purpose of the government action, a court may find the effect of a government action to infringe upon our freedom of expression.

    What is the effect of this restriction on freedom of expression?

    In an era rife with misinformation and disinformation, citizens are urged to fact-check information through well-respected news agencies with high journalistic standards before sharing content online. However, fact-checking through trusted news agencies Instagram or Facebook accounts is attempted in vain. Visits to news accounts read “People in Canada can’t see this content – In response to Canadian government legislation, news content can’t be viewed in Canada”.

    The impairment of our ability to fact-check runs contrary to Canada’s commitment to counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation. In a fast-paced world it is not always convenient nor efficient to fact-check information through a Google search, which is why so many people rely on “instant” information through platforms like Instagram. Furthermore, direct site visits to news publishers can often be blocked by pay walls, making it more difficult to discern the facts from a credible source.

    Countering the spread of misinformation was particularly crucial during the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic, however, alternative news agencies were more accessible than highly credible sources. Unfortunately this same effect has taken place throughout wars and major elections.

    In that respect, “…as part of a series of reports on coordinated inauthentic behaviour, Meta reported that, in 2021, it had removed 52 networks found in 34 countries that had ‘engaged in coordinated efforts to manipulate or corrupt public debate for a strategic goal, while relying centrally on fake accounts to mislead people about who’s behind them’.”[v] The 2022 Report of the UN Secretary General – Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms – concluded that “States bear the primary responsibility to counter disinformation by respecting, protecting and fulfilling the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to privacy and to public participation.”[vi]

    The right to political participation

    According to research on Trust in Media published in July 2024 by Pollara Strategic Insights, 33% of Canadians and 57% of Gen Zs use social media as their primary news source[vii]. One important difference between receiving information on a dedicated news app from receiving it on a social media app is the ability of the reader to directly engage in democratic dialogue in a social media feed. This direct access to democratic engagement is particularly important to women and others from marginalized groups.

    The impairment of the right to impart information undermines the enjoyment of the right to political participation. Arguably, sharing opinions on social media that are pertinent to political issues, regardless of the content of one’s opinions, is an exercise not only of the freedom of expression but also of the right to political participation and democratic engagement. This assertion is affirmed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada:

    “Expressing political opinions or sharing political content on social media is a form of political expression and is protected by the Charter”[viii].

    The 2024 article Tweeting, talking, or doing politics? Testing the influence of communication on democratic engagement in Science Direct says, “The act of citizens being both politically and civically engaged is a known benefit to society, which is collectively known as ‘democratic engagement.’”[ix]

    Social media has become one of the most powerful political tools of the 21st century. Therefore, without the ability to access, read, share, and participate in political dialogue on issues that concern us and shape our lives, Canada could be found in violation of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)for failing to reach an agreement with social media giant Meta Platforms Inc.

    In June of 2023 up to 5% of Canadians social media users were included in a test for whom Meta blocked news content; they continue to experience this block, which has been extended in application to 100% of Canadians since August 2023. This block has impaired Canadians’ right to freedom of expression and the right to meaningful political engagement at the time of a generational crisis. We cannot defend our civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without the guarantee of freedom of expression aligned with international standards.

    The international responsibilities of trans-national corporations

    Although Meta is directly responsible for the infringement on Canadians’ human rights, the State is indirectly responsible. Human rights must be respected, protected and fulfilled through the regulation of non-State actors. And although Meta its headquartered in the United States, the U.S. is also a party to the ICCPR, whereby an affected member State may file a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee.

    Transnational corporations (TNCs), including Meta, have an obligation to respect human rights in the countries where they conduct business. This obligation is outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). In a statement released by Meta on March 16, 2021, a corporate human rights policy was launched stating that it “sets out the human rights standards we will strive to respect as defined in international law including the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)”[x].  Meta stated that “(w)e will report our most critical human rights issues, like risks to freedom of expression, to our Board of Directors.”[xi]

    According to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Article 13:

    The responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises:

    1. (a)  Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur;
    2. (b)  Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.

    Meta’s Corporate Human Rights Policy also states that they commit to implementation of the Global Network Initiative (GNI) Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy. The GNI Principles in turn recognize the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and therefore that “the deprivation of one right adversely affects others”[xii]. The Principles further state that “freedom of opinion and expression supports an informed citizenry and is vital to ensuring public and private sector accountability. Broad public access to information and the freedom to create and communicate ideas are critical to the advancement of knowledge, economic opportunity and human potential.”[xiii] This supports the assertion that adverse impacts on the right of freedom to receive and impart information may also adversely affect the right to political participation.

    “Not only does Meta control a huge chunk of the internet’s physical infrastructure, it also controls who can see what, when and where. That gives it enormous power, even as the contours of the legal obligations to its users remain unclear.”[xiv]  It is notable that compliance of TNCs with human rights norms is an evolving area of international law, but in the interest of public perception and accountability, they ought to put human rights above profits by paying their fair share to Canadian news agencies. Conversely, Canada ought to put human rights above profits, despite the 2025 tariff crisis. At a time when the world is experiencing a decline in democracy, with Canada having slid down from a liberal democracy to an electoral democracy on the V-Dem Index in recent years[xv], and women’s rights facing a fierce backlash worldwide, including in Canada, perhaps profit loss is not the most meaningful cost.

    Ironically, the Online News Act is said to be “An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada”[xvi], but it has done just the opposite, and it must be addressed. Can the Liberals, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, take action to foster an effective remedy to the benefit of all Canadians impacted by this ongoing human rights violation?

    Respectful engagement is welcomed through the comment section that follows the footnotes.

    [i] https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-18  Accessed October 3, 2025.

    [ii] Thibeault, Cochran, Major; Federal government reaches deal with Google on Online News Act; November 29, 2023; CBC News;  https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/google-online-news-act-1.7043330

    [iii] Article 19, para. 3: The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

    [iv] Analysis; 3. Does the law or government action at issue, in purpose or effect, restrict freedom of expression?; Section 2(b) – Freedom of expression; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Charterpedia; Canada’s System of Justice; Government of Canada; https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2b.html; website accessed October 7, 2025

    [v] United Nations General Assembly; Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; pg. 15/19; Report of the Secretary General; A/77/287; 12 August 2022; footnote 92: See www.theverge.com/2020/3/16/21182726/coronavirus-covid-19-facebook-google-twitter–youtube-joint-effort-misinformation-fraud  

    [vi] United Nations General Assembly; Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; pg. 17/19; Report of the Secretary General; A/77/287; 12 August 2022

    [vii] Page 6 (infographic); (2024) Trust in Media: How Canadians feel about news outlets. Pollara Strategic Insights.  https://www.pollara.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Trust-in-Media-July-2024-final.pdf
    (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

    [viii]  Your rights on social media during an election; Sept. 1, 2021; Public Service Alliance of Canada. https://psacunion.ca/your-rights-social-media-during-election  (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

    [ix] Tweeting, talking, or doing politics? Testing the influence of communication on democratic engagement; Sherice Gearhart, Bingbing Zhang, and Oluseyi Adegbola; Telematics and Informatics Report, Vol. 16, December 2024, 1000167; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772503024000537  (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

    [x] https://about.fb.com/news/2021/03/our-commitment-to-human-rights/  (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

    [xi] https://about.fb.com/news/2021/03/our-commitment-to-human-rights/  (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

    [xii] Page 1; Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy; Global Network Initiative; last updated May 2017; https://globalnetworkinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GNI-Principles-on-Freedom-of-Expression-and-Privacy.pdf  (Accessed Sept. 6, 2025)

    [xiii] Ibid, page 3.

    [xiv] Facebook, Meta and the power of tech; Piper, Arthur; International Bar Association; Nov. 24. 2021; https://www.ibanet.org/Facebook-Meta-and-the-power-of-tech  (Accessed Sept. 4, 2025)

    [xv] Pages 52, 60, 62; Nord, Marina, David Altman, Fabio Angiolillo, Tiago Fernandes, Ana Good God, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2025. Democracy Report 2025: 25 Years of Autocratization – Democracy Trumped? University of Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/61/v-dem-dr__2025_lowres_v2.pdf

    [xvi] https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-18  Accessed October 3, 2025.

  • How the SAVE Act could affect Millions of US women

    How the SAVE Act could affect Millions of US women

    A photo depicting the silhouette of a woman's hand dropping a voting ballot into a ballot box.

    “Today is a dark day in politics.”[1] The League of Women Voters denounced the passage of the SAVE Act in the US House of Representatives on April 10th as a dangerous step backwards for democracy, possibly disenfranchising millions of women. And ultimately what happens in the United States does not affect only the United States. However, the Act could still be rejected by the Senate.

    On January 3, 2025, U.S. Republicans introduced an act to the 119th Congress which could prevent millions of American citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote. The SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act; H.R. 8281) will adversely affect the integrity of the upcoming midterm elections and will decide which party controls the US House of Representatives and Senate. But among the voters potentially affected by the SAVE Act would be approximately 69 million women, according to the Center for American Progress[2] because their birth certificates could not be used as proof of citizenship. The proposed Act creates barriers for anyone who has undergone a name change since birth, thus affecting married women who have taken their husband’s name, among others.

    The Trump Administration’s stated objective of the SAVE Act is, ironically, election integrity, aimed to keep non-citizens from voting in US elections. It would, however, potentially keep millions of citizens from exercising their right to vote. “Kansas briefly experimented with a SAVE-like documentary proof of citizenship requirement, and it was an expensive disaster. The law blocked over 30,000 potential registrants in just two years — approximately 12% of all voter registrations during the period — and Kansas officials conceded in court that over 99% of affected voters were U.S. citizens.”[3]

    To achieve this, the Administration is having voting registries routinely purge their electoral databases “to prevent election fraud”, thus requiring citizens to re-register in person to provide proof of US citizenship. The SAVE Act does not specifically state what documents would be required as proof of citizenship[4], thereby creating ambiguity for those that the law would affect. To trace this out – a birth certificate, while affirming the place of its holders’ birth, for obvious reasons, does not have a photo of the holder; the birth certificate could, hypothetically, be a stolen document presented by anyone of a vaguely similar description and is therefore insufficient on its own. Logically, additional government issued identification, must be provided; however, a driver’s license is not acceptable as non-citizens have them too, and only approximately 50% of Americans have passports. Valid identification would have to include a current photo and description of its holder, to provide a means of visual confirmation for the electoral registries when presented in person. However, and this is the tricky part, that photo ID would have to match the name of the birth certificate. This would prove difficult for anyone who has changed their name, thereby capturing the demographic of married women. A Pew Research Center 2023 survey estimates that 80 % of married women have taken their husband’s last name[5].

    “Married women make up over a quarter of the electorate, so impeding them from registering to vote has a potentially significant impact on election outcomes.”[6]

    In consideration of the proposed SAVE act women should prepare themselves accordingly by gathering or obtaining all relevant government issued documents and proof of citizenship available including birth certificates, marriage certificates, change of name certificates, passports, driver’s licenses, and any other government issued identification. Secure them in a safe and accessible location. Stay informed of all notifications of upcoming elections (AP news provides a calendar), which begin in April of 2025, and verify that you are registered. Be prepared to provide proof of citizenship again when voting. Finally, vote!

    The political motivation of the SAVE Act is undeniable. According to the Brennan Center for Justice approximately 34% of women could be turned away from the polls[7]. This means a significant number of women will not have any control over who they choose to represent their rights and interests, including on core women’s issues like safe and accessible abortions and other forms of health care.

    What’s at stake?

    One of the general principles of a democracy is that one citizen is entitled to one vote. Therefore, putting laws in place that are not of adequate quality (clear and unambiguous) and are proportionate (to the reality that there were only 30 cases of non-citizen voting found[8], according to the Brennan Center for Justice nationwide study), creates an unreasonable obstacle to the political rights of American citizens.

    For advocates of women’s rights ensuring that every woman who is an American citizen can vote is integral not only to her rights, but also to maintaining the ability for the exercise women’s collective rights. As women’s rights are in sharp decline across the globe our political involvement is more crucial than ever. The truth is that we often don’t know what threat might be next, especially following the overturning of Roe v Wade. We see women and those who help women, such as doctors, being criminalized for maintaining autonomy over our own bodies and our own lives. We see the rise of “menism” and blatant sexism affecting younger generations of boys and men, while older generations of men seek to push our progress back by decades. This is not the time to be complacent and to trust the system. This is the time for vigilance and the anticipation of threats ahead of their implementation. To that effect, some women are already politically active, fighting for all women.

    The best option to the challenges of facing voter suppression is to stop the SAVE Act from passing in the Senate. Every American citizen can write to their Senator and express their opinion on any proposed Act of legislation. Let’s ensure that they are aware of the United States’ international legal obligations and vote accordingly. And with criminal penalization, including up to five years of prison time, those who work the polls are dissuaded from allowing those with name changes to vote.

    The United States is just one Member State of a larger context designed to protect all of humanity – the United Nations – to which the State may answer to if it violates its international legal commitments. Therefore, women and others engaging in political activism may rely on the above international obligations of the United States in writing to their congressional representatives or senators. To avoid harm to the international reputation of the United States, to its standing as a democracy, and to avoid UN sanctions, the executive ought to adhere to the binding obligations of the nation State.

    Respectful engagement is welcomed through the comment section that follows the footnotes.

    [1] https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/dangerous-step-backward-our-democracy-league-women-voters-responds-passage (Accessed April 10th, 2025)

    [2] https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-disenfranchise-millions-of-citizens/. (Accessed March 20, 2025)

    [3] https://responsivegov.org/research/the-save-act-how-a-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-would-impact-elections/. (Accessed March 24, 2025)

    [4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/save-act-voter-registration-citizenship-married-women-name-change/ (March 21, 2025)

    [5] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/07/about-eight-in-ten-women-in-opposite-sex-marriages-say-they-took-their-husbands-last-name/. (Accessed March 24, 2025)

    [6] https://responsivegov.org/research/the-save-act-how-a-proof-of-citizenship-requirement-would-impact-elections/ (Accessed March 24, 2025)

    [7] https://newrepublic.com/article/186160/republican-war-women-extends-voting-rights. (Accessed March 24, 2025)

    [8] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-voting-missing-millions. (Accessed March 24, 2025)

  • The SAVE Act in the context of international law

    The SAVE Act in the context of international law

    It is an axiomatic principle of international law that a State may not invoke its domestic laws as justification for failure to respect international law, otherwise international law would be rendered meaningless. The United States Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or “SAVE Act” has been widely condemned by American justice organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice and the League of Women Voters, as an instrument of voter suppression. With midterm elections having begun, which could secure Republicans a more effective majority in the House of Representatives, perhaps it’s time to stop relying on Constitutional law and start relying on international law. Democracy hangs in the balance.

    The United States of America is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), having ratified and acceded to the Covenant in 1992.

    Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to vote to all citizens, without unreasonable restrictions.

    Article 25

    Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

    (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;

    (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors

    On the point of Article 25 guaranteeing those rights and opportunities “without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2”, Article 2 states the following:

    Article 2

    1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

    2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

    It follows that a State may not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to vote with distinction according to “sex” or “other status”, which applies to marital status. This is further supported by Article 3 of the ICCPR.

    Article 3

    The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

    According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 28 on Article 3, the equality of rights between men and women, adopted on 29 March 2000:

    29. The right to participate in the conduct of public affairs is not fully implemented everywhere on an equal basis. States parties must ensure that the law guarantees to women the rights contained in article 25 on equal terms with men and take effective and positive measures to promote and ensure women’s participation in the conduct of public affairs and in public office, including appropriate affirmative action. Effective measures taken by States parties to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right should not be discriminatory on the grounds of sex. The Committee requires States parties to provide statistical information on the percentage of women in publicly elected office, including the legislature, as well as in high-ranking civil service positions and the judiciary.

    (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10)

    The Human Rights Committee distributed General Comment No. 25 in 1996; under Article 40, paragraph 4 of the ICCPR (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7). It states that:

    1. Article 25 of the Covenant recognizes and protects the rights of every citizen to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the right to vote and to be elected and the right to have access to public service. Whatever form of constitution or government is in force the Covenant requires States to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects. Article 25 lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent of the people and in conformity with the principles of the Covenant.

    3. In contrast with other rights and freedoms recognized by the Covenant (which are ensured to all individuals within the territory and subject to the jurisdiction of the State) article 25 protects the rights of “every citizen”. State reports should outline the legal provisions which define citizenship in the context of the rights protected by article 25. No distinctions are permitted between citizens in the enjoyment of these rights on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. (…)

    4. Any conditions which apply to the exercise of the rights protected by article 25 should be based on objective and reasonable criteria. (…)

    5. The conduct of public affairs, referred to in paragraph (a), is a broad concept which relates to the exercise of political power, in particular the exercise of legislative, executive and administrative powers. It covers all aspects of public administration, and the formulation and implementation of policy at international, national, regional and local levels. The allocation of powers and the means by which individual citizens exercise the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs protected by article 25 should be established by the constitution and other laws.

    (CCPR_C_21_Rev.1_Add.7-EN.pdf)

    Finally, according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which has been ratified by the United States and reflects customary international law, Article 27, internal law and observance of treaties, states:

    A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

    Before the U.S. Senate votes on the SAVE Act, they ought to be reminded of the larger context of international legal obligations that the United States not only consented to, but played an important role in establishing.

    (Originally published April 16, 2025)

    Respectful engagement is welcomed through the comment section that follows the footnotes.

    “H.R.8281 – 118th Congress (2023-2024): SAVE Act.” Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 23 July 2024, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8281. : The SAVE Act in the context of international law