Though policy 713 was introduced in New Brunswick, the debates it has sparked around gender identity and parental rights has implications for all Canadians
Policy 713 was introduced in New Brunswick in 2020 to serve as a legislative basis regarding the rights of 2SLGBTQIA+ students in the province. This policy has undergone revisions twice in 2023.
First, in June 2023, the province's government amended a portion of the Self-identification Section 6.3. The section now prefaced that students under the age of 16 would require the consent of parents to be addressed with their preferred pronouns in educational settings. This change in June 2023 sparked much debate about whether or not the policy was in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
These debates prompted another revision in August 2023 which while still maintaing the requirement of parental consent, introduced intervention steps if there were complications in obtaining it.
This change meant that students under 16 would first be referred to a guidance counsellor or school psychologist to determine how to gain consent from their parents. The Government of New Brunswick believes that this change encourages students' exploration of gender identity and ensures support from adults.
Hamilton Community Legal Clinic is a not-for-profit that serves as a legal service for Hamilton residents. HCLC released a statement regarding Policy 713 that acknowledged their stance against the proposed policy and its implementation.
Michael Blashko, staff housing lawyer and the lead on the Queer Justice Project at HCLC, expressed that the primary concern is around the impacts on children under 16. He pointed out that many educators, social workers and psychologists have expressed deep concern.
“The potential impacts [on children under 16] are quite well known and not only professional educators and different associations of educators have come through with comments against this policy change. . .but also just health professionals,” said Blashko.
The potential impacts [on children under 16] are quite well known and not only professional educators and different associations of educators have come through with comments against this policy change. . .but also just health professionals.
Michael Blashko, Queer Justice Project lead, Hamilton Community Legal Clinic
He shared one of the most concerning parts of the policy was the actual lack of consultation that went behind the changes.
“I believe it was first implemented by the party that actually has made the changes now, which raised a lot of eyebrows. My understanding is that there were little to no consultations that occurred with any experts, any interest groups, [or] any students who would be impacted. Nothing like that,” said Blashko.
Moreover, the changes in New Brunswick have guided other provinces to take the same actions. Saskatchewan has followed suit, implementing an almost identical policy. Manitoba's Premier has expressed that the desire to have their province want to follow suit as well.
“I think my general position is just discomfort and disappointment that that's the approach that they– not just New Brunswick– but several different premiers and government seems to be taking,” said Blashko.
Despite the province's changes to 2SLGBTQIA+ student rights, there are many who are challenging the legality of the policies.
Blashko shares that in New Brunswick a lawsuit is being issued by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in opposition to the policy. In Saskatchewan, the same is being done by the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity.
He shared that Saskatchewan could lose the case due to the potentially unconstitutional nature of their policy. However, he also shared that in the face of such a case, the province could refer to the notwithstanding clause.
The clause allows them to override the violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Blashko feared this will create a precedence for this type of lawmaking.
“If Saskatchewan becomes the first province to invoke the notwithstanding clause as essentially a direct attack on Trans[gender] and Queer human rights. That's certainly a concerning precedent. And if that happens, there's not a lot that can that, you know, people can do to defend against that. It's literally a mechanism to violate rights,” said Blashko.
If Saskatchewan becomes the first province to invoke the notwithstanding clause as essentially a direct attack on Trans[gender] and Queer human rights. That's certainly a concerning precedent. And if that happens, there's not a lot that can that, you know, people can do to defend against that. It's literally a mechanism to violate rights
Michael Blashko, Queer Justice Project lead, Hamilton Community Legal Clinic
Overall, Blashko shared that in the midst of these legal battles, he’s hopeful people all over Canada will show their disapproval of these policies. He hoped that governments and educational entities will step away from these policies and protect the rights of 2SLGBTQIA+ students.
How the Madonna-Whore complex never left society after all despite the sexual revolution.
By: Venus Osmani, SATSC Contributor
cw: hypersexualization of women, mistreatment of women, racism
The sexual liberation movement began with the implementation of oral birth control pills in the United States, allowing for a drastic increase in female post-secondary graduates and careers. The benefits of easily accessible contraception were huge, but criticism can be given for the uprising in hypersexualizing of women seen in the media, notably Playboy magazines. The infamous rise of Hugh Hefner’s and his Playboy Mansion dominated the 60s sexual
revolution of discarding the feminized norm of the “housewife” and embracing sex. The rise of Playboy was arguably one of the most influential marketing moves of the century. The company created an outlet for women to embrace sexual liberation after a puritan and sexually repressed America which was dominated by the Madonna-Whore complex proposed by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.
The psychological dichotomy in Freud’s male patients essentially states women must be seen as either chaste and virginal or promiscuous and forthcoming; but never both. The great America prior to Playboy ostracized alleged sexual deviants and Hefner broke this ideology and challenged social restrictions. Playboy encouraged women to eradicate the norms of purity and to strive to become, for lack of better terms, sexual objects.
Yes, Hefner encouraged women to express their sexual nature and reach beyond the prudish nature of social norms, but here is the main critique to the evolution of the sexual revolution: the movement “revolutionized” women as sexual objects but it grotesquely presented women as exactly that. Women were now reduced to objects separate to that of their own sexual desires, creating an even more restricted role to be confined to. After the publication of this reformed ideology, the market turned women's bodies into a profitable business.
The movement
“revolutionized” women as sexual objects but it grotesquely presented women as exactly that.
Aside from pure pornographic material, female sexual imagery leaked through to clothing, cosmetic and most famously, fragrance industries because ultimately, sex sells. But how this sexual imagery plays a role in what sexuality entails?
Take Eva Mendes in the Calvin Klein Secret Obsession Ad or Victoria’s Secret in how embracing sexuality has its limitations based upon physical appearances. These advertisements show a woman who is not fully nude, yet still exposes herself entirely, containing the innocence centered around male dominated femininity — the epitome of the Madonna-Whore complex.
The Madonna-Whore complex and the idea surrounding sexual liberation targets white women at its core. Birth control pills in the early 1960s allowed for women to gain bodily autonomy with the freedom of choice and sparked the discussion of female sexuality and social norms. What failed to be mentioned was whether the pill complicated racist degradation of Black fertility, evoking several campaigns to promote sexist norms within Black communities and degrade Black childbearing.
What failed to be mentioned was whether the pill complicated racist degradation of Black fertility, evoking several campaigns to promote sexist norms within Black communities and degrade Black childbearing.
Black women were given the opportunity to gain control over their reproductive rights more than ever before, so why the criticism towards the pill? From the early 1900s to 1970s, many states supported the false idea of eugenics, stating that Black people are biologically less intelligent than white people, often denoted as ‘scientific racism’.
Despite a lack of scientific evidence to support Black inferiority, Black women were often sterilized regardless. So given the time period of the rise of eugenics and birth control, oral contraception was seen as a weapon against Black fertility as opposed to mere liberation and sexual endorsement towards predominantly white women.
The question is whether Hefner's influence was for the greater good or greater evil. Playboy reconstructed social norms to create a sexual revolution for women and he was an open supporter of the civil rights and queer rights movements. However, the company was inherently misogynist and normalized the objectification of women and at large, it was established for the benefit of men. In fact, former playmate Sondra Theodore had described the abuse of the sedative Quaaludes used for sex under the codename ‘thigh openers’.
Women are surrounded by sexuality in modern times. Much about sexual liberation is empowering and allows for reproductive control, but in another lens, the media perpetuates a sexually appealing standard for women to fulfill. Hugh Hefner advocated for supposed liberal feminism when mainstream society emphasized bachelorhood and promiscuity in opposition to the 1950s suburban dream. Nearly 70 years later, the Madonna-Whore complex continues to dictate internal misogyny: a spectrum of debauchery and chastity with no in-between.
