Human rights commissions and public policy: The role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in advancing sexual orientation equality rights in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article examines the capacity of human rights commissions to foster public policy change by focusing on the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and its role in advancing sexual orientation equality rights in Canada. The case study is informed by commission annual reports, speeches by past chief commissioners, presentations by the commission to parliamentary committees, and an examination of 442 sexual orientation complaints closed by the commission by 2005. The study shows that, from its inception, the commission had a simple and consistent message: sexual orientation should not be the basis for denying individuals employment, services or benefits. Using a variety of strategies, the CHRC facilitated the incorporation of this message into the Canadian Human Rights Act by promoting the designation of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Subsequently, the commission became actively involved in securing equal access to employment‐related benefits in the federal sphere for same‐sex couples and also added its voice in support of legal recognition of same‐sex marriage. The authors conclude by discussing how the unique position of human rights commissions gives them the potential to play an important role in public policy development, even when there may be a lack of political will or public support. Sommaire: Le présent article examine l'aptitude des commissions des droits de la personne à encourager les changements dans la politique publique en mettant l'accent sur la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne (CCDP) et son rôle dans la promotion des droits à l'égalité en matière d'orientation sexuelle au Canada. L' étude de cas tire ses informations des rapports annuels de la commission, des allocutions prononcées par d'anciens présidents de la commission, des présentations faites par la commission aux comités parlementaires, et d'un examen de 442 plaintes relatives à l'orientation sexuelle traitées par la commission jusqu'en 2005. L' étude indique que, depuis sa création, la commission avait un message simple et unanime : l'orientation sexuelle ne devrait pas être un motif invoqué pour refuser de l'emploi, des services ou des avantages sociaux à des particuliers. Grâce à diverses stratégies, la CCDP a facilité l'intégration de ce message à la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne en faisant en sorte que l'orientation sexuelle soit désignée comme un motif de discrimination interdit. Par la suite, la commission a été active sur la scène fédérale pour assurer que les conjoints de même sexe bénéficient de l' égalité d'accès aux avantages liés à l'emploi, et elle a également soutenu la reconnaissance légale du mariage des conjoints de même sexe. En conclusion, les auteurs discutent la position unique des commissions des droits de la personne qui leur offre le potentiel de jouer un rôle important dans l' élaboration des politiques gouvernementales, même avec un manque de volonté politique ou de soutien public.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".