International Law for Women

a resource for women's human rights advocates

Tag: International human rights law

  • Canadian law inspires hope on the elimination of intimate partner violence

    Canadian law inspires hope on the elimination of intimate partner violence

    (25 minutes read time; post-graduate level)

    Lady Justice holding the scales of justice before a Canadian flag on a sun lit mountain
    (AI generated image)

    Eliminating intimate partner violence globally may be almost intangible goal, but within Canada there is continued hope and effort for advancement. In the face of a global backlash against women’s human rights and following a rough beginning under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s new leadership in 2025, Canada has seemingly recommitted itself to the progression of gender equality. Even so, as Canadian Parliamentarians return to their seats this fall, they have unfinished business to resume from the 45th Parliament, 1st Session. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is just one of many interrelated forms of gender-based violence and remains a persistent issue within Canada, contributing to substantive gender inequality. After several years of declining rates, IPV began increasing in 2015,[ia] as reported by Statistics Canada in 2025, coinciding with the beginning of the global backlash. And, while IPV is not confined to a particular sex, gender, class, age, ability nor ethnicity, women and girls are the primary victims; those with intersectional marginalized identities face increased risk. This article provides an overview of recent federal commitments taken to mitigate intimate partner violence by using the international framework of human rights indicators.

    Index

    • Human rights indicators
    • Ratification of international human rights treaties
      (structural indicators)
    • Domestic legislation and rulings addressing gender-based violence (2026)
      • Bill C-16: Protecting Victims Act
      • Bill C-225 Bailey’s Law
      • Common Law and judicial rulings (process indicators)
    • Canada’s work ahead in legislation
      • Bill S-236: Canadian Victims Bill of Rights
      • Bill S-242: Georgina’s Law
    • Conclusion

    Human rights indicators

    States have a legal obligation to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. Compliance and progress with these obligations are measured through human rights indicators (HRIs). The assessment framework, as endorsed by the United Nations in 2012, measures three types of human rights indicators – structural, which are the voluntary commitments that a State has made, process, which consider the efforts that each State has made, and outcome indicators, which measure the results. The infographic below illustrates examples.

    Infographic summarizing United Nations human rights recommendations for selecting structural, process, and outcome indicators regarding sexual and reproductive health and women's participation in decision-making.
    United Nations Indicator Framework – compliance and performance assessments

    Ratification of international human rights treaties (structural indicators)

    An assessment of a State’s compliance with international human rights law begins with a determination of its legal commitments – the structural indicators. The ratification[ii] of international human rights instruments, also known as treaties or conventions, in turn create legal obligations for the implementation of human rights standards into domestic law and policies.

    The ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which is globally recognized as a core human rights treaty, has become the minimum commitment towards gender equality that is expected of all United Nations Member States. To date the CEDAW has been ratified by 189 UN Member States, including Canada in 1981, but notably not by the United States. And while the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has become a legal source for women’s human rights, it does not explicitly address violence or abuse. But now, that massive gap is being filled through regional conventions.

    The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence[iii], also known as the Istanbul Convention, according to the city where it was adopted, requires member parties to create laws, policies and related support services to end violence against women. This Convention functions as complementary to the CEDAW. Unfortunately, the Convention is only open to Council of Europe member States, as it is a regional organization. However, the Council has a similar counterpart in the Americas – the Organization of American States (OAS).

    Women in protest against femicide; photo by Tlhagueny, courtesy of Pexels

    While many Canadians are aware that Canada is a member party of the United Nations, a global organization, they are mostly unaware of Canada’s membership, or even the existence of the Organization of American States (OAS). Membership in this regional organization carries with it human rights obligations, which extend legal rights to all individuals within the jurisdiction of those States. Like the United Nations, the Organization of American States has a commission to oversee gender equality. “Established in 1928, the Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM) was the first inter-governmental agency established to ensure recognition of women’s human rights.”[iv]

    On June 23, 2026, Canada ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women.[v] This human rights instrument is essential because the CEDAW does not contain a stand-alone provision prohibiting violence or abuse. Global Affairs Canada, in their press release, referred to violence against women as “one of the most pervasive and deeply rooted human rights violations and abuses of our time”.[vi]

    Also known as the Belém do Pará Convention, after the Brazilian city where it was adopted, the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women recognizes “that violence against women is an offense against human dignity and a manifestation of the historically unequal power relations between women and men”[vii]. In doing so, the treaty takes aim at substantive inequality. Whereas in 2026 women may be equal to men according to the law in most democratic nation States, they are not substantively equal, even in Canada. Violence against women continues to infringe upon the enjoyment of many other human rights, including the right to education, the right to work, the right to political participation, the right to health and the right to life; therefore, ratification is an essential step towards women achieving substantive gender equality. For Canada, on July 23, 2026, the Belém do Pará Convention entered into force, as per Article 21.

    A close-up of two women showing concern, one comforting the other, with a third woman in the background looking on, all expressing a somber mood.
    Women supporting each other in the face of intimate partner and gender-based violence

    Domestic legislation and rulings addressing gender-based violence

    Structural indicators are used to measure human rights commitments internationally, regionally and domestically. The enactment of domestic legislation is necessary to give legal effect to international and regional commitments. Human rights must exist in law. The following legislative acts have been adopted according to the implementation of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women. Although the Convention does not name ‘coercive control’ or ‘femicide’ explicitly, the concepts of both are implied in Article 1 and other provisions.

    Article 1

    For the purposes of this Convention, violence against women shall be understood as any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere.[viii]

    Once the legislative act is passed or reaches ‘royal assent’, as is the formal term in the Canadian Parliament, and has entered into force, it can then be upheld as law in Court.

    Bill 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
    Assented to: June 18, 2026

    On June 18th of 2026 all sides of the House of Commons came together and passed Bill C-16 (2025), the Protecting Victims Act. The Act amended the Criminal Code of Canada to address child protection, gender-based violence, delays in the court system and other important measures. The Act recognizes the complexity of gender-based violence by adding two crucial crimes that fill in the shadows. Bill C-16 defined and added coercive control as an autonomous criminal offence to the Criminal Code thereby acknowledging that gender-based violence is more than incident-based; it is an abuse and a form of psychological violence that occurs over an extended period of time, often using threats and intimidation, exhibiting a pattern of conduct meant to entrap and control a partner, spouse or vulnerable person.

    While most amendments of Bill C-16 came into force on July 18th, 2026, those on coercive control will take up to two years to implement, allowing time to train peace officers, judges and others. In the meantime, countless women continue to survive without liberty or safety. Some won’t make it to the two-year mark, as coercive control is a strong predictor of femicide and suicide.

    Canada also conceptualized femicide in the Canadian Criminal Code. This addition classifies the murder of a woman as first-degree murder, under certain circumstances, including following a pattern of coercive control. Canada, however, does not join the almost 30 other nation States, mostly from Latin America and the European Union, that recognize femicide as a stand-alone crime.[ix] [x] [xi]

    This question remains – how will the delay in the implementation of recognizing coercive control as a crime in and of itself, affect the determination of femicide?

    Bill C-225: Bailey’s Law

    An Act to amend the criminal code

    Introduced in the House of Commons by the Honourable Frank Caputo
    First reading: April 28, 2026
    Royal Assent: June 17, 2026

    Bailey’s Law amends the Criminal Code of Canada to strengthen protections against intimate partner violence. First, it creates “a new specific offence of murder in the first degree if the murder is committed against an intimate partner in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”[xii]. If manslaughter is committed under that same context, “the court must consider whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on the offender and, if that sentence is imposed, an adult offender is ineligible for parole for 10 to 25 years”[xiii]. It also creates “new offences in respect of included offences in which violence is used, threatened or attempted against an intimate partner”[xiv]. Additionally, Bill C-225 will “increase the detention period of things seized under section 490 of the Act from three months to 180 days”[xv], which could keep lethal weapons away from offenders.

    Bill C-225 may appear at first glance to be redundant to Bill C-16, however, it has an important distinction that lies in its raison d’être. The justice system failed Bailey McCourt, a 32-year-old mother of two, who was killed by her abusive, estranged ex-husband shortly after he was released on bail.[xvi] Earlier on the day that James Plover blugeoned Bailey McCourt to death with a hammer in a Kamloops, BC parking lot, he had been sentenced to three counts of uttering threats and one count of assault by strangling.[xvii] Plover never should have been released from police custody! But now, Bailey’s Law will reform bail policy for high-risk offenders and require recognition of lethality risk indicators during bail hearings.

    A woman with long blonde hair wearing an orange sports jersey smiles for the camera while posing on a couch with two children, who have their faces blurred for privacy.
    Bailey McCourt and daughters

    Common law and judicial rulings (process indicators)

    Process indicators are a subset of human rights indicators that measure the scope of the State’s effort to make women’s human rights effective. These are both quantitative, such as budgetary commitments, and qualitative, including judgments and rulings. The judicial finding would fall under process indicators in the framework of human rights indicators (HRIs).

    A landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of Canada recognized coercive control as a new tort (unfair harm) in the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia on May 15, 2026. “Best understood, it is not confined to conduct that inflicts physical or psychological injury but includes all abusive conduct by which one intimate partner coerces and controls the other, thus depriving them of their autonomy. This includes egregious acts of physical and psychological violence, as well as tactics of isolation, manipulation, humiliation, surveillance, economic abuse, sexual coercion, and intimidation that can control and entrap intimate partners.”[xviii]

    One may wonder how a court can make this ruling before the new legislation of Bill C-16 had taken effect. The answer is ‘common law’, which in this context refers to the legal findings of other nations, and it is widely used in human rights law. According to the Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Kasirer, Martin, O’Bonsawin and Moreau “Common law jurisprudence in Canada reveals a largely settled method for how and when novel causes of action in tort should be recognized. Incremental change in the common law is warranted where necessary to clarify a legal principle, resolve an inconsistency, or ensure the law remains in step with the evolution of society.”[xix] Legal precedents are often used where there is no appropriate written legal code, in the applicable Constitution, for the case at hand.

    Canada’s new tort of coercive control represents crucial progress in the advancement towards substantive gender equality domestically, while setting legal precedent for foreign nations to follow.

    A group of eight professional women standing together in an elegant indoor setting, smiling and engaging with each other.
    Women parliamentarians (AI generated image)

    Canada’s work ahead in legislation

    There are several legislative acts that were introduced in 2025 and 2026, before Parliament passed for the summer break, that remain to be passed. These acts would complement existing ones to advance women’s human rights in Canada by mitigating gender-based and intimate partner violence.

    In March of 2026 the United Nations Human Rights Committee published its seventh periodic report on Canada. The Committee’s Concluding Observations included principal matters of concern and recommendations on human rights; they addressed gender equality, violence against women and domestic violence. The Committee noted that these issues are particularly prevalent in remote areas and disproportionately affect

    “women and girls from Indigenous Peoples or from racial or ethnic minorities and 2SLGBTQI+ persons”[xx]. The Committee specified that it is concerned by “limited availability of shelters and legal aid services, as well as by the obstacles victims face in reporting violence and accessing justice, such as the lack of trauma-informed policing practices, lengthy and adversarial legal processes and inadequate coordination among police, courts and social services. The Committee received reports raising concerns about the lack of transparency, oversight and clarity of implementation processes related to the National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence (arts. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 26).”[xxi]

    Bills S-236 and S-242 would give legal effect, in part, to the Committee’s recommendations.

    Bill S-236: Canadian Victims Bill of Rights

    An Act to amend the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and to establish a framework for implementing the rights of victims of crime

    Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Leo Housakos
    First reading: October 1, 2025

    Amendments to the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights will provide greater transparency to victims of crime about the investigation and proceedings of their cases, and information about the accused or offenders. This bill may have saved Bailey McCourts life, had she been informed that her abusive ex-husband had been released from police custody earlier that day. While it maybe too late for her, it may save the lives of other victims of intimate partner violence.

    The Act also adds important support to the victims of crime by adding “13.1 Every victim has the right to have access to legal, social, medical and psychological services that are suited to their needs and circumstances”. This would aid in addressing the many human rights violations that are consequences of intimate partner violence.

    Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention requires States Parties to (g.) “establish the necessary legal and administrative mechanisms to ensure that women subjected to violence have effective access to restitution, reparations or other just and effective remedies”.[xxii] Section 16 of the Victims Bill of Rights would be amended with:

    Reparations

    16 Every victim has the right to obtain reparations for the harm done to them as the result of the commission of an offence, including the right to

    (a) have access to restorative justice programs; and

    (b) have the court consider making a restitution order against the offender.

    Ubi jus, ibi remedium –

    ‘where there is a right, there is a remedy’,

    Latin maxim

    The right to an effective remedy is a core component of international human rights law. This follows from the duty that States have to give legal effect in the domestic legal order to the rights of certain conventions, such as the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (See General Comment No. 9; CESR Committee) Ensuring the right to an effective remedy is in the best interest of the State and of the individual. Before an individual or group of individuals may submit a formal complaint to a human rights body at the international level, they must first exhaust all remedies at the domestic level. This provides the State with the opportunity to rectify a situation and avoid accusations or findings of human rights violations at the international level.

    It is not imperative, however, that the domestic remedies be judicial; the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights provides for a non-judicial mechanism in Section 25 of the Act.

    Complaint to authority

    (2) Every victim who has exhausted their recourse under the complaints mechanism and who is not satisfied with the response of the federal department, agency or body may file a complaint with the authority designated by the Governor in Council to review complaints in relation to that department, agency or body.[xxiii]

    Non-judicial mechansims aid in reducing court backlogs and in administering justice more efficiently to victims.

    Victims rights advocates protest outside of Parliament (AI generated image)

    Having access to an effective remedy unfortunately does not prevent nor protect from human rights violations. Protections must be found in the law itself through the adoption of legislative measures and their effective implementation, adherence and policy evaluations. These measures often rely on budgetary commitments and other limited State resources, which are measurements of process indicators. And while State resources may be limited, a recent report by YWCA BC – The Cost of Inaction: Measuring the Economic Impact of Gender-Based Violence in BC – estimates that gender-based violence costs BC $1.12 billion annually. [xxiv] Alternatively, prevention is much less costly.

    YWCA BC – The Cost of Inaction: Measuring the Economic Impact of Gender-Based Violence in BC
    (click arrow to drop Figure 1: infographic of annual costs)
    Infographic depicting the annual economic costs of gender-based violence in 2025 dollars, including detailed costs related to femicide, physical and sexual assault, harassment, and government expenses.

    Unfortunately, Bill S-246 has not proceeded since its first reading in the Senate on October 1st, 2025. It must proceed to bring legal effect to Canada’s international legal obligations.

    Bill S-242: Georgina’s Law

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

    Sponsored by the Honourable Senator Fabian Manning
    Third reading in the Senate: February 24, 2026
    First reading in the House of Commons: May 27, 2026

    As per Article 3 of the Belém do Pará Convention “Every woman has the right to be free from violence in both the public and private spheres.”[xxv] Furthermore, under Article 8 (h.) the Convention requires States “to ensure research and the gathering of statistics and other relevant information relating to the causes, consequences and frequency of violence against women, in order to assess the effectiveness of measures to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to formulate and implement the necessary changes”.[xxvi] Bill S-242 would implement those obligations into the domestic legal order.

    Bill S-242 recognizes that the efforts in protection from intimate partner violence must be continued. In 2014 Georgina McGrath nearly lost her life to intimate partner violence due to the severity of her injuries. To protect others from such violence she has been fighting to change the laws since 2017, along with Senator Fabian Manning. Bill S-242 provides for the continuation of national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence and femicide, led by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality (WAGE). The Act, known as Georgina’s Law, is centered on annual engagement between the WAGE Minister and federal and provincial ministers responsible for the status of women, as well as regular engagement with Indigenous partners, victims, survivors, and stakeholders with respect to “the adequacy of current programs and strategies aimed at preventing intimate partner violence and at protecting and assisting victims of intimate partner violence”[xxvii], as well as other considerations.

    This Act would require that the WAGE Minister publish a report every two years on the progress and action taken to prevent and address IPV. This report would provide a necessary assessment of the collective efforts to eliminate IPV and in turn create accountability.

    In the Senate debate on December 11, 2025, Senator Manning noted that since he introduced the first inception of this bill in 2018, “close to 1,500 victims, almost all of them women, have died by the hands of their intimate partner.”[xxviii] Bill S-242 passed in the Senate where it was introduced, on February 24, 2026; it is now under consideration in the House of Commons with the hope that it will soon reach Royal Assent.

    “Close to 1,500 victims, almost all of them women, have died by the hands of their intimate partner.”

    Senator Fabian Manning; February 24, 2025

    Conclusion

    Ultimately, the true measure of a State’s progress with respect to human rights is not revealed by its intent on paper (structural indicators), nor of its efforts, such as the creation of programs, initiatives or the allocation of funds (process indicators), but rather in the results (outcome indicators). These can be qualitative or quantitative, as in the example of statistics. They should measure the real-life impacts on citizens.

    It is a tragic reality that despite the progress that nation States like Canada are making in combating intimate partner violence, there is still much work to be done. The legislative acts mentioned here are not exhaustive; there are other forms of discrimination, exploitation, and violence against women by intimate partners that overlap with other human rights abuses. They include sexual exploitation, trafficking and technology-facilitated violence, which can merge together, or with other forms of abuse. To that effect, the CEDAW Committee acknowledged the prevalence of “new and emerging forms” of gender-based violence, which require constant vigilance in all areas – public, private and online. Addressing gaps in our laws that allow intimate partner violence to continue requires the adoption of new laws to create criminal offences and legal consequences that will serve as deterrents for would-be offenders, thereby potentially saving lives.

    Women’s human rights defenders stand proud and strong in solidarity outside a government office. (AI generated image)

    Advancing women’s rights is not the sole task of one entity – it requires coordination and commitment from international human rights organizations and domestically, by the executive, legislative, judiciary and of course, the hundreds of non-profit women’s advocacy groups and the determined individuals who fight for progress and provide support services on the front lines of violence against women.

    Sadly, backlash has been escalating for the past decade and more political will is required to protect against gender-based violence, particularly as technology facilitates the perpetuation of regressive attitudes and new forms of harm. But progress in one nation State can inspire hope and inform progress in other States.

    (September, 2026)

    Call to Action

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

    Bill S-236: Canadian Victims Bill of Rights
    Bill S-242: Georgina’s Law

    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

    Footnotes:

    [ia] (Lower table) Victims of police-reported family violence and intimate partner violence, by type of violence, gender and year, Canada, 2009 to 2024, rate per 100,000 population; Statistics Canada; Date modified: 2025-10-28. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/251028/cg-a001-eng.htm 

    [ib] Indicator Framework – compliance and performance assessments; figure XII, page 110[i] https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf 

    [ii] “Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of bilateral treaties, ratification is usually accomplished by exchanging the requisite instruments, while in the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the depositary to collect the ratifications of all states, keeping all parties informed of the situation. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary timeframe to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.

    [Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]”

    https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml#ratification

    [iii] https://rm.coe.int/168008482e 

    [iv] https://belemdopara.org/cim_mesecvi/cim/  Visited Sept. 20, 2026.

    [v] https://belemdopara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/texto-de-la-convencion-INGLES.pdf

    [vi] Para. 3, News release; June 23, 2026; Panama City; Global Affairs Canada.
    https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2026/06/canada-ratifies-inter-american-convention-on-the-prevention-punishment-and-eradication-of-violence-against-women.html 

    [vii] Preamble, para. 3; Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence

    against Women. https://www.oas.org/en/mesecvi/docs/belemdopara-english.pdf

    [viii] Article 1, Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belém do Pará); Organization of American States; 1994. https://belemdopara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/texto-de-la-convencion-INGLES.pdf

    [ix] Recognition of femicide in the EU; Ionel Zamfir, Members’ Research Service; Published: May 2026 | Document number: PE 789.304 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2026/789304/EPRS_BRI(2026)789304_EN.pdf 

    [x] Femicide laws worldwide: 50 years of evolution and ongoing gaps; Marina Elefante and Siyi Wang; June 16, 2025  https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/femicide-laws-worldwide–50-years-of-evolution-and-ongoing-gaps 

    [xi] Which countries recognize the crime of femicide?; El Economista TV; YouTube;   https://youtube.com/shorts/1UJ-7Duiyec?si=4Xlu6cVmYF2k8fsJ 

    [xii] Summary (a); Bill C-225: An Act to amend the Criminal Code; First Session, Forty-fifth Parliament. https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/bill/C-225/royal-assent

    3-4 Charles III, 2025-2026

    [xiii] Ibid, (b).

    [xiv] Ibid, (c).

    [xv] Ibid, (d).

    [xvi] Global News; July 9, 2025; ‘I told her she was loved’: Witness recounts horrific attack that killed Kelowna mother, by Klaudia Van Emmerick. (Updated November 27, 2025) https://globalnews.ca/news/11282296/witness-recounts-attack-that-killed-kelowna-mother/ 

    [xvii] CBC News; July 23, 2025; Family of mother killed in Kelowna, B.C., calls for changes to justice system in letter to PM by Michelle Morton. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mccourt-family-s-letter-to-pm-1.7592543 

    [xviii]  Per Wagner C.J. and Kasirer, Martin, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ; (para. 4) Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/21505/index.do 

    [xix] Per Wagner C.J. and Kasirer, Martin, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ; (para. 4) Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, May 15, 2026; SCC 16 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/21505/index.do

    [xx] CCPR/C/CAN/CO/7, pages 6-7. Concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Canada; United Nations Human Rights Committee; 2 April 2026.

    [xxi] Ibid.

    [xxii] Article 7 (g); Intern-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women. (1994) https://belemdopara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/texto-de-la-convencion-INGLES.pdf

    [xxiii] Lines 27-31, page 2, Protecting Victims Act (2025).

    [xxiv] Figure 1: Infographic of annual economic costs of gender-based violence, 2025 dollars(page 9); The Cost of Inaction: Measuring the Economic Impact of Gender-Based Violence in BC; YWCA BC; page 9. https://ywcabc.org/sites/default/files/assets/media/file/2026-04%20/YWCABC_The_Cost_of_Inaction-Measuring_the_Economic_Impact_of_GBV_in_BC_Report.pdf 

    [xxv] Article 3; Intern-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women. (1994) https://belemdopara.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/texto-de-la-convencion-INGLES.pdf

    [xxvi] Article 8, Ibid.

    [xxvii] Engagements, 2 (a); Bill S-242; first reading; First Session, Forty-fifth Parliament; Senate of Canada; https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/S-242/first-reading

    [xxviii] (1420) Honourable Senator Manning; December 11, 2025; Debates of the Senate (Hansard) 1st Session, 45th Parliament; Volume 154, Issue 45 ; https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/451/debates/045db_2025-12-11-e#37 

  • 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 

  • 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)