Canada’s early laws used “persons” when referring to more than one person and “he” when referring to one person. It was treated as though these statutes were referring only to men, even when they used the term “persons”. This included the statute requiring senators to be “qualified persons”, which prevented women from being appointed to the Senate.

In 1927, five women launched a legal challenge that the Supreme Court rejected, deciding that women were not included as “persons” under that law. The women did not give up. They took their case to what was then Canada’s highest court of appeal, in Great Britain. The appeal was accepted and resulted in women being officially eligible for Senate appointments in 1929. This was a significant shift in the involvement of women in public and political life in Canada.

It resulted in the famous headline “Women are persons”:

Throughout history, the idea of a human being not being counted as person under the law has been used to deny basic human rights to groups such as slaves, Jews, and other minority groups. Today this argument is used to justify abortion and deny pre-born children the right to life.

Person’s Day is worth noting and celebrating for the gain it made for women. It is also proof that a country can recognize and right an injustice, and gives us hope for a future Person’s Day when pre-born children will be recognized as persons deserving of legal rights.

In considering injustice, it is always best to start with unflinching self-examination. We quickly see that this is not a day to rest on our laurels and give thanks for the wonderfully egalitarian, feminist country in which we live. As a Canadian woman it saddens me to know that one violation of rights that faces Canadian girls year after year remains unchanged: sex-selective abortion. While countries around the world have taken steps to address and end sex-selective abortion, Canada continues to ignore the issue. So, today in Surrey, British Columbia, 50,000 pink flags will be planted in a public park to draw attention to the reality that is sex-selective abortion.

Several research studies over the past few years have shown an imbalanced birth rate in Canada, with boys outnumbering girls in a ratio that cannot be explained naturally. Earlier this year, a study headed by Dr. Susitha Wanigaratne and published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health showed a significant imbalance in the boy-girl ratio in South Asian communities. Researchers point to sex-selective abortion, which is allowed in Canada, as a contributor to this imbalance.

Naturally, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. In South Asian families with two girls and one or more reported abortions after that, the ratio shifts to up to 280 boys born for every 100 girls. There is no elevation in boy birth rates when no abortions are reported.

In Canada we say we care deeply about women’s rights, and equality rights. Somehow these rights have come to be synonymous with abortion as a ‘woman’s right’. Yet, this so-called ‘right’ continues to result in abortion disproportionately targeting baby girls. Abortion is not about a woman’s right to choose – it is about taking away a child’s right to live, and it makes a statement about the value that we place on women in Canada when we allow sex-selective abortion. Pre-born children are being killed simply because they are girls, and we need to draw a line that says this is not okay.

It was initially thought that sex-selective abortions in South Asian communities would decrease with the next generation, as they presumably took on Canadian values and recognized the equal worth of women.  This most recent study, however, confirms that second-generation South Asian women, born in Canada, continue to show a preference for boys. Manvir Bhangu, a co-author with Wanigaratne of the 2018 study, told the Globe and Mail, “These biases are deeply rooted in our culture.”

These biases are not just deeply rooted in South Asian culture. As one researcher told CTV news, this “problem is very partially Indian, and hugely Canadian.” There is a reason that second generation South Asian women have not changed their views and suddenly started valuing women more highly. Canada has not modeled to them a valuing of women. Pornography is rampant, women continue to be portrayed as sex objects for men in movies, shows and advertising, and women continue to work for less pay than men.

By telling women we have equality and respect, Trudeau’s government is telling us a lie while refusing us the opportunity to ask questions. In a rapidly changing world of fluid gender and distorted family units, women and their unique child-bearing ability have become a poster child for oppression and repression. So what we have is abortion – is this control over your body and your future? Actually, abortion allows men a unique kind of control, combining a lack of responsibility for this “women’s issue” with allowing a disproportionately large number of new men to be born, to perpetuate the belief that men are more powerful, more valuable, and more essential to society.

There are some signs that we recognize the inherent bias of sex-selection. The Assisted Human Reproduction Act prohibits sex-selection when it comes to in vitro fertilization. But once the embryo develops into a fetus, sex-selective abortion is freely allowed in Canada.

This disconnect in the law and the underlying devaluing of women is the reason we continue working to draw attention to the injustice of sex-selective abortion. The International Day of the Girl is not only about issues facing girls outside of Canada. Called a “women’s issue”, abortion does indeed impact women far more than men – from the very earliest stages. We have work to do to defend girls right here at home.

You can learn more about sex-selective abortion in Canada at DefendGirls.com.

On the official website, it says, “International Women’s Day is not country, group or organisation specific. The day belongs to all groups collectively everywhere. So together, let’s all be tenacious in accelerating gender parity. Collectively, let’s all Press for Progress.”

As an organization committed to advancing pre-born human rights, we don’t just advocate for gender parity, but for human parity. As abortion continues without regulation in Canada, we will continue to press for progress: progress that brings Canada in line with every other democratic nation in the world.

What does this progress look like? It looks like legislation prohibiting abortion when you would just prefer the other sex. It looks like legislation recognizing the violence women may face while pregnant and honoring her choice to carry her child by punishing more severely any crime that harms that child. It looks like an International Standards Law protecting pre-born children after 13 weeks as so many of our European counterparts do without question.

As so many areas show progress, from ultrasound technology to prenatal surgery and treatment options, our legislation needs to keep up. There is no denying the humanity of the pre-born child, and progress means allowing that reality to dictate legal protections. Emotion and a desire for autonomy should not drive public policy.

Gender parity is a noble goal, but human parity is its foundation. On International Women’s Day, do not believe the claim that gender parity must include unrestricted access to abortion. Without human parity, we will never achieve true gender parity.

Background on the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment

It is the Human Rights Committee’s job to interpret a document called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (or the “Covenant”). The Covenant is a list of human rights that 169 countries have agreed to honour. The Human Rights Committee was created to interpret the Covenant in two main ways. First, individuals can bring their country to the Committee to determine whether a right was breached. Secondly, the Human Rights Committee will issue documents called “General Comments” which elaborate on a right and explain how governments must act to protect the right.

The General Comment in question includes an explanation of the right to life in the context of abortion. The Committee starts from the position that governments cannot legislate abortion in a way that violates the right to life of a pregnant woman. In their opinion, this means governments “must provide safe access to abortion” where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or in cases where the pre-born child suffers from a fatal illness.  They go on to compel governments to ensure that women will not “have to undertake unsafe abortions,” and conclude by stating that governments must provide prenatal and post-abortive health care, with no mention of postnatal care.

Commenting on the General Comment

Before finalizing the General Comment, the Human Rights Committee welcomes comments from a variety of sources. As such, we submitted comments on October 5 arguing three main points.

First, we argued that the Human Rights Committee needs to acknowledge the right to life for pre-born children in this General Comment. Arguing that life begins at conception and that human rights are inherent in all human beings regardless of age or size, we pointed out that this is already recognized in the Covenant. This right to life of vulnerable persons needs legal protection.

Secondly, we argued that a correct legal interpretation of the Covenant is consistent with a recognition of the right to life for the pre-born and is inconsistent with a right to abortion. The Human Rights Committee uses vague language creating a broad requirement for governments to provide access to abortion. This interpretation is not grounded in the Covenant nor in international law generally.

Thirdly, we argued the Human Rights Committee was not honouring governments’ ability to regulate abortion independently. There are countries that restrict access to abortion because they respect the right to life of the pre-born. The inviolable nature of the right to life is a foundational moral question – one that has been and continues to be foundational for the UN itself. The Human Rights Committee does not have the authority to compel governments to ignore the right to life of the pre-born.

Many others also wrote to the Human Rights Committee in defense of the right to life of the pre-born. It is our hope that the Committee will read these submissions and be persuaded to edit the proposed General Comment in such a way that maintains the recognition of the right to life of the pre-born.

Thank you to Tabitha Ewert, articling student with ARPA Canada, for this guest post.

For the past few days my colleague Colin Postma and I have been in Winnipeg, Manitoba attending the ‘Understanding and Answering Summit on Human Rights’ hosted by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). The best part is that I’m in Winnipeg, in the summer, and I’ve only seen one mosquito.

Among other presenters and Christian apologists, RZIM also invited an atheist to the summit. Dr. Christopher DiCarlo, a professor in the Faculty of Human Biology and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, agreed to a dialogue with Dr. Andy Bannister, the Director of the Solas Center for Public Christianity at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. The theme for the dialogue was “Human Rights, by Design or Default” and it was attended by approximately 450 people, many of them Christian, but also many who were simply interested in hearing both perspectives.

The following day we were treated to a more intimate conversation on the same topic. The conversation meandered through various topics before the subject of artificial selection in utero came up. Dr. DiCarlo, who, incidentally, was a friend of Dr. Henry Morgentaler and even gave a eulogy at his funeral, acknowledged that this has occurred in the past and pointed out that it still occurs today. He referred to it as “systemic selection” and explained how fetuses are terminated based on sex and ability. When pressed as to whether this was right or wrong Dr. DiCarlo expertly made the case for how, at the point of fertilization, a new life has begun, and that to allow the life to develop was his preference. In fact, his words were, “Just leave it alone”. I thought I was listening to a pro-life apologist! He was speaking truth about pre-born children! That is, until he said, “But it is still a woman’s choice.” When the inconsistency of his position was pointed out, DiCarlo again emphasized a woman’s choice, and then the discussion had to move on.

I really appreciated DiCarlo’s response that as much as possible we should “just leave [the embryo] alone.” It was a response that revealed his heart. But, in spite of the emotional connection to the developing human being, he still came to the conclusion that abortion was solely a woman’s choice. I couldn’t help but think back to the dialogue at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights the previous night. In putting forward the “human rights by default” position, Dr. DiCarlo proposed a “Value Theory” whereby right and wrong are determined by neurochemical reactions within our brains which can then be transformed into community values. The logical extension of this is that because society has agreed that abortion is a woman’s choice then it must be that way.

DiCarlo and Bannister have had previous dialogues, and the respect they have for one another is admirable. Witnessing their conversations this week was to observe a striking contrast in worldviews; one based on ever-shifting sand, the other on the rock of Jesus Christ. I came away with a sense of sorrow for Dr. DiCarlo, indeed all Canadians whose worldview does not acknowledge Truth, even in the midst of speaking truth.

As we approach our 150^th birthday this summer, we shouldn’t be resting on the laurels of a renowned human rights record. Instead, we should be engaged in serious reflection and self-examination. How can we do better?

The number one way in which we can do better is in relation to our most vulnerable. Pre-born babies continue to be discarded by the tens of thousands every year. Politicians are scared of the topic – Liberals because they could lose their jobs if they talk about it, Conservatives because they’re told they may not get the job if they talk too much about it.

In our apparent attempt to maintain an international reputation as tolerant, progressive, and accommodating, we have ended up with special interest rights trumping human rights. “Reproductive rights” have somehow trumped the right to life, and suggesting that human rights should trump women’s rights is not going to win me any popularity contests.

It is only a matter of time, however, before everyone has to admit that the emperor has no clothes. Science has never been clearer regarding the intricate humanity of life in the womb. The pre-born child is unequivocally a separate, living human being. It is dependent on its mother, yes, as is a newborn or toddler. Also like a newborn or toddler, the pre-born child has its own DNA, and can even be operated on separately from the mother.

In the blur of plummeting birth rates and newfound sexual freedom that came with widely available birth control, we as women somehow came to believe that we were the masters of conception. Not one of us would ever again have a child against her will; we would decide whether life lived or died within us. This belief led us to fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that pregnancy might just be something we couldn’t always control, and we’ve managed to convince a lot of women to cling to that control regardless of the consequences. By doing so, we’ve also allowed men to step back from responsibility, to expect control, and to turn a blind eye to consequences.

The rights to life, liberty and security of the person were matters of life and death to our forefathers. They founded our nation on these values because these values mean something. We cannot be casual about these terms, or the associated implication that human rights trump individual rights. The right to life, the primary human right, is violated every moment that abortion remains legal in Canada. We need to stand up and say this is not about bodily autonomy or fighting patriarchy, this is about life. So women, men and children from all ages and stages of life, all backgrounds, all with their own stories, beliefs, and reasons for being there, will march. We march for, and stand for, the right to life for all members of the human family.

We should always take notice, and even celebrate, a declining number of pre-born children losing their lives to abortion. But in addition to this being a positive news story we should also acknowledge that it really is both contraception and laws that contribute to a declining abortion rate.

In the past number of years there have been plenty of laws passed, including the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, Parental Consent and Notification Laws, Mandatory Ultrasound Laws, Mandatory Waiting and Counselling Period Laws, and the list goes on. In each instance, another advance is made against the pro-abortion mainstream by protecting pre-born children and making it more difficult for them to be aborted.

The laws that have been passed in the U.S. not only protect lives, they also have a profound pedagogical effect by sending a message to the population that there is something immoral about abortion. It goes without saying that these laws have an incredible cultural impact. The effect on culture is that people are becoming far more careful in how, when, and for what reason(s) they engage in sexual activity. Whether within or outside of the marriage relationship men and women will undoubtedly exercise greater responsibility to ensure that, when taking part in the act of sex they are giving thought to whether or not said activity will result in procreation. The reasons for this are obvious – if their actions result in pregnancy it will be difficult, if not impossible, to simply destroy the evidence by way of abortion.  It is easy to conclude that the reason the rate of abortion is declining is because it’s a lot more challenging to actually get one!

What does this mean for us in Canada? And what encouragement can we take from a declining abortion rate in the country south of us?

It should convince us that by working incrementally we can make a difference. Let’s not kid ourselves; these are real lives saved! Advancing pre-born human rights is a slow process that requires transformational change – change that can only happen when we move forward one step at a time. Our pro-life counterparts in the U.S. have been incredibly successful at changing the culture and saving lives.

Abortion laws both save lives and produce behavioural change among the population. As the Guttmacher study proves, it is for these reasons we need to continue pursuing legislative initiatives in Canada that protect pre-born children.

In fact, motherhood should be viewed for what it is: a unique and powerful opportunity for women to shape the next generation, teaching both boys and girls that equality is not defined by sameness, but by value and respect.

Girls face immense barriers to equality around the world, despite repeated attempts and international initiatives to balance these inequities. The International Day of the Girl should focus on gender-based violence and injustice, on access to excellent medical care, quality education, and the ending of child marriage. To shift the focus to pregnancy and abortion access does nothing to enhance girls’ prospects, but only reinforces the message that women earn equality by becoming more like men.

Read the full article at MercatorNet.

The belly button means that, as independent and self-sufficient as you may now be, at one point you were so intimately connected to another person that your time together left a permanent mark for all to see. This mark is not a scar or a blemish, or a misguided tattoo choice, but something common to every man or woman you’ll ever meet. It is a sign of your innate need for others, a need that, while it changes and develops, does not leave you.

We all have one. They don’t all look the same, and they don’t all stay the same, but they all mean the same thing: we have a permanent, central mark connecting us to the woman who carried us, who chose to let us live, who delivered us and who, only then, allowed us to be separated from her, but not without leaving her signature.

At this point the story diverges greatly. Some of our mothers welcomed us with tears of joy and open hearts and arms. Others struggled through post-partum depression and the crushing weight of responsibility that was now theirs. Others cried tears of pain as they handed us over, physically or legally, to a nurse, foster parent, or adoptive parent. Others kept us but cared for us badly, unwilling or unable to give up addictions, dangerous anger, or a perilous home situation.

Regardless of where our life story leads after the arrival of the belly button, though, we could not have had any of the chances or choices we have had without that first step. Without a mother willing to carry us for as long as we were willing to stay inside, our belly button would be a mere dent in a tiny discarded body, long gone, if not entirely forgotten.

Our belly buttons, silly and strange and ticklish as they may be, signify a much deeper truth about ourselves: we could not have gotten here on our own. To now decide to make the choice of whether to grant a belly button to another human being who is completely dependent, at least temporarily, on his or her mother, would be arrogance beyond measure. Whether you are a doctor, a counselor, a nurse, a mother, a father, a friend or a grandparent, that is simply not a choice you get to make.

Human life depends on dependence. To stomp on that dependence is to irreparably violate a sacred cycle. To suggest that dependence or a need for others makes one less valuable is to forget your own belly button.