|
Home > Correspondence > Human Rights Commissions
Correspondent: NOVA SCOTIA September 23, 1999 Dear Ms. Taylor: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 19, 1999 received in our office September 16, 1999. Your letter has been referred to our legal counsel and we will get back to you shortly about the issues you raised. Thank you for writing to us. I appreciate your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Best regards. Yours sincerely, [signed] Mayann E. Francis
March 9, 2000 Dear Ms. Taylor: I am writing further to your letter of August 19, 1999 and my letter of September 23, 1999, which indicated that your correspondence had been referred to our Legal Division for consideration. The Legal Division having completed its research into the issues, I am now able to indicate the Commission's thoughts on the issues you have raised. I can state at the outset that this Commission has never received a complaint from anyone who has undergone the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision (FC) as it is apparently called in communities which engage in the practice. This does not mean that such women are not in our midst, or are not experiencing discrimination as a result of the practice, only that the Commission has not received a complaint in relation to this issue. Our research revealed that FGM/FC is a very complex matter involving historical, cultural, religious and sociological issues. It is our understanding that before the Ontario Human Rights Commission adopted its policy on FGM, it undertook extensive consultations with various sectors of the community, particularly the communities in which FGM/FC has historically been practised. We believe that any policy that might be adopted by the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission must similarly be informed by a consultation process. In the meantime, it is clear that the practice of FGM/FC itself is forbidden under our Criminal Code. With respect to male circumcision, it is not clear that it violates the rights of males in the same way that FGM/FC may violate the rights of females. As with FGM/FC, the Commission has had no complaints in relation to male circumcision. Again, the Commission feels that it will require a clearer understanding of the historical, cultural, religious, sociological and medical background and context for this practice before it can determine whether it comes under the jusrisdiction of the Human Rights Act. Rather than undertake such consultations at this time, these matters will be included in the list of issues that will be considered, and undergo a consultation process when the Human Rights Commission takes steps in the not too distant future to begin a comprehensive review of the Human Rights Act, with a view to modernizing our statute. I thank you for bringing these matters to my attention. Yours sincerely, [signed] Mayann E. Francis
^Top |