Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights unequivocally states: 'Every individual is
equal before and under the law...' For good measure, Section 28 was included (after
fierce lobbying from women's groups) to ensure that, never again, would women be
legally subservient. It states: 'notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the
rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female
persons.'
Indeed, the language couldn't be more explicit. After generations as legally diminished
second class citizens, Canadian women finally stood alongside their male counterparts
as equals.
Thus, when the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled last December that Gwen Jacob's 1991
conviction for removing her shirt in public contravened her Charter of Rights (since
males were not subject to a similar punishment), it did so with complete justification.
By its decision, the court issued a sharp reminder that, regardless of deeply-ingrained
attitudes towards specific modes of attire, or the lack thereof, sanctions cannot
apply differently to women and men.
The resulting brouhaha over female toplessness in public is somewhat mystifying.
Given the Charter's uncompromising stance, why is moral outrage over exposing one's
breasts directed specifically at women? Oftentimes, the law is accused of lagging
behind social change. In this instance, the views expressed by supposedly enlightened
Canadians demonstrate a virtual disdain for hard won Charter protections.
If men can remove their shirts in public, then so can women. Conversely, if communities
prefer women to be covered above the waist in public places, other than beaches,
then a similar requirement must be imposed on men. what's good for the goose is
good for the gander, and vice versa.
Peter D. Pellier