Feminist Advocacy and the Law

Recap on Panel Discussion at WeirFoulds LLP on 26 November 2019
Rachel Bryce (3L, JD/MGA), Adil Munim (3L), and Abdullah Khan (1L)

On a mild November evening, five impressive women took the stage at WeirFoulds LLP to share their diverse experiences and views on feminist advocacy and the law. Together, they offered expertise from private law in big and small firms, government practice, non-profit advocacy, and academia. The four panelists included: Gillian Hnatiw, Principal at Gillian Hnatiw & Co and former partner at Lerners LLP; Megan Stephens, Executive Director and General Counsel at Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) and former Crown prosecutor; Deepa Mattoo, Executive Director at the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic; and Ashley Major, Research Associate at the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. The panel was moderated by Petra Molnar, Acting Director of the IHRP.

Left to Right: Ashley Major, Gillian Hnatiw, Deepa Mattoo, Megan Stephens, and Petra Molnar (Photo Credit: Adil Munim)

Each panelist outlined their respective journeys through the legal field. Although each of their pathways was unique, all four women described interactions with women’s rights issues and the need to confront their own position as women in the legal profession. Responding to Petra’s question asking what feminism and feminist advocacy means to each of them, Megan emphasized her drive to use the law to advance silenced voices. Although not an easy fight, she underscored the need to ensure that the Court understood the impact of its decisions, especially regarding sexual violence. Echoing these sentiments, Gillian described sexual assault as a crime of power. To her, civil law could be used as a tool of power, centering on the victim, asking what they want and what a solution looks like to them. Unlike criminal law, Gillian appreciates the flexibility of civil law. In general, she raised the importance of autonomy throughout her career facilitating her ability to work to level the playing field for women, specifically survivors of sexual violence.

Moving to describe her relationship to feminism and feminist advocacy, Deepa pointed to feminist movement-building as being another key path to change outside legal norms and standards. Compellingly, she distinguished policy meant to empower women from the still dominant jurisprudence on the “model victim.” This model victim would be young, able-bodied, credible, articulate, white-passing, and both not too passionate nor too cold. For this and myriad other reasons, less than five per cent of sexual violence is reported. In a particularly powerful moment of the evening, Deepa declared that these women, survivors of sexual violence, marginalized voices, have strong and motivated voices; they just need to be heard. For her, changing the law happens more outside the courts than inside.

Ashley then opened the conversation to feminism in international law, problematizing the fact that warfare and history are written by men and for men. She brought to light shining examples of feminist advocacy influencing international jurisprudence, comparing the Tribunals on former Yugoslavia and on Rwanda. The Akayesu trial had zero charges on sexual violence, focusing on the “more important” charges of murder. One progressive judge would hear the charges on sexual violence and responded to an Amicus brief prepared by two University of Toronto graduates and feminist advocates from around the world. Still, the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda classified sexual violence solely as rape, not identifying the long-term harms of forced marriage and sexual slavery. It is feminist advocacy that pushes necessary changes to Tribunal interpretation and procedure. Ashley stated confidently that there is a need to teach legal professionals about these issues sooner, bravely, and compassionately.

Petra next posed the forward-looking question of where we are going from here. There was consensus that feminist advocacy must continue diversifying, welcoming intersectionality and empowering marginalized women. All of the panelists pointed to education and consciousness-raising as a necessary step to achieving more representational advocacy in the future, starting at the earliest stages of legal training and continuing throughout the legal profession. Gillian noted the need to better understand how to be an ally. Megan called out the persistent failure in understanding systemic discrimination in the legal profession and reemphasized the need for women and marginalized voices to be loud and talk about racism, sexism, and all forms of discrimination in the legal field. To close the guided portion of the panel, Petra aptly described the four panelists as “tool makers and rule breakers who are working to make the world a better place.”

Ada Keon, Petra Molnar, Gillian Hnatiw, Megan Stephens, Ashley Major, and Deepa Mattoo (Photo Credit: Adil Munim)

As a final note to the young professionals and law students in the audience, the panelists provided comforting and encouraging advice around handling burn-out, particularly when focusing on heavy subject matter such as sexual violence. Deepa strongly advised balancing one’s work with hobbies and things that bring one joy. It is important to identify where one’s deficit lies and how to fill it healthily. She noted that we thrive on how busy we are, but need to learn to acknowledge when we have “lazy days.” That balance needs to be okay. In private law, Gillian admitted that the first years will be the toughest, but as years go on, one gains autonomy and allows for better prioritization of tasks. Conversely, Megan described the Crown as expecting that only minimal work will come home. She encouraged the audience to set reasonable boundaries and to take advantage of the cycles of litigation. Petra noted that self-care can be speaking truth to power, that our emotional responses can be used as acts of resistance.