Law Times

Law Times • February 24, 2014 Page 7 www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT African project's success an example of why we went to law school any lawyers in Ontario are familiar with the "Why I Went to Law School" campaign launched by the Ontario Bar As- sociation last year. It's a great eff ort aimed at improving the image of a profession sometimes sullied by the conduct of a few. e campaign allows lawyers a platform to connect with the community by revisiting the journey taken to earn a law degree and tying it to the sta- tus they now enjoy. Many of the stories speak of struggles and a desire to help others overcome adversity. e altruistic desire to help others less fortunate is something most lawyers apply in either their work or through their community involvement. Indeed, most successful law fi rms make signifi cant contributions to those less fortunate through pro bono assistance and fi - nancial donations. is reputation has led to lawyers and law fi rms being prime targets for solicitations for dona- tions of money and in-kind services. With the many good causes and worthwhile charities to choose from, how- ever, it's o en diffi cult for lawyers and law fi rms to decide where to invest their energies and fi nancial contributions. In our globalized world, although domestic charities are no less deserving, it is important to consider what we as lawyers can do beyond our borders to improve the lives of others. Africa is home to many of the poorest countries in the world. Many studies suggest the best way to help people in Africa is to invest in women and girls because the improvement of their lives has an important positive impact on others in their communities. ese studies also suggest that where women and girls do not suff er oppres- sion, there is greater prosperity and peace. In 2010, with the audacious goal of changing the lives of women and girls in Kenya by protecting them from rape, a group of Canadian and African lawyers mapped out a legal strategy to mount a constitutional challenge on behalf of some 160 girls between the ages of three and 18 who had been the victims of rampant, unpu nished rapes in Meru, Kenya. With the support of Ripples International, these girls signed on with a Ca- nadian-based international non-governmental orga- nization called "the equality eff ect" to launch the case. e equality eff ect actively fundraised for the 160 Girls project in Canada and targeted the legal commu- nity to support this novel test case. As lawyers, we un- derstand the ways in which this type of litigation can work to change public perceptions even if it doesn't succeed in the courts. As Canadians, we are also famil- iar with the Jane Doe case that held the police account- able for their failure to protect the women of Toronto from the balcony rapist. It was a case the 160 Girls project relied on as a precedent. On Oct. 11, 2012, the International Day of the Girl Child, the 160 Girls case began. e claim was that police inaction and negligent handling of rape cases had violated the girls' constitutional rights to equality, security of the person, and dignity and constituted a violation of international human rights law. On May 27, 2013, the High Court of Kenya agreed with the 160 girls when it issued a scathing indictment of police handling of rape cases and ordered the Kenyan po- lice service to conduct prompt investigations and lay charges in both current and future cases. e case pro- vides a solid legal precedent for similar proceedings in other jurisdictions. Following the international media attention garnered by the landmark ruling, the equal- ity eff ect received many requests from women's groups in other countries to help launch similar claims. In addition to targeting a similar action in Malawi, there is ongoing work by the equality eff ect to ensure authorities implement the 160 Girls decision in Kenya. A public education and awareness campaign, includ- ing billboards about the 160 Girls decision, has been launched in Kenya to kick off the campaign. e amazing success of the 160 Girls project was achieved with the help of lawyers from around the world, including a dedicated group of Cana- dian counsel working pro bono, primary Canadian funders, and several Canadian law fi rms that made gener- ous contributions. at success is a testament to the valu- able contribution Canadian lawyers and law fi rms can and do make to international human rights work. Four leading Canadian law fi rms signed on to contribute fi nancially for three years to support the ongoing 160 Girls project: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, and Koskie Minsky LLP. We are very proud to count our fi rm among them. e support of the Canadian lawyers and fi rms in the 160 Girls project has already helped achieve a critical legal precedent for girls' rights in Africa. It is thrilling to play a part in a story that saw these 160 courageous Kenyan girls challenge their state and win. e equality eff ect and Rip- ples International have helped set the high-water mark for a model of collaborative and innovative social justice work we hope to see adopted elsewhere. is is exactly the type of work we as lawyers need to get more involved in and fi nd ways to support, par- ticularly when we don't practise in the human rights fi eld. It's also extremely rewarding to take part in fun- draising for a cause that has such a big impact on the future of a continent. While we always hope to make a small diff erence every day in the lives of our clients or in upholding the law, there is something very special about having a far more signifi cant and ambitious goal. is is why we went to law school. LT Steven Rosenhek is a litigator and May Cheng is chair- woman of the Toronto intellectual property group at Faskens. For information on the 160 Girls project, con- tact executive director Fiona Sampson at fsampson@ theequalityeff ect.org. u SPEAKER'S CORNER Third parties upping the ante as election talk gathers steam ill Premier Kathleen Wynne drop the writ this spring? e big intrigue around the legislature as it got back to work last week is how long it will be before there's a general election. A er the byelection results earlier this month, you'd have to think Wynne must have gotten the message. She threw ev- erything the Liberals had at the riding of ornhill, Ont., but couldn't shake the Conservatives' grip on the seat. Meanwhile, the NDP scored the Liber- al seat in Niagara Falls, Ont., a er putting up a high-profi le city councillor and local union leader Wayne Gates as the party's candidate. Wynne ended up losing 20 per cent of the Liberal votes from 2011. As it did in 2012 in Kitchener-Water- loo when Catherine Fife took the riding from the Conservatives in a byelection, the NDP did a great job in mustering the troops to get out the vote. Both times, the results had Conserva- tive Leader Tim Hudak wailing that his candidates lost due to "big labour" and in some respects he's right. Big labour bussed in volunteers, put boots on the ground, and got voters to the polls. at's party politics and that's how the game works. Get over it. Still, Hudak also knows that in a gen- eral election the NDP can't bring those same focused resources to bear on the bigger playing fi eld. It can target ridings but not across the board. Further, the Con servatives lost Niagara Falls by less than 1,000 votes. As Hudak noted when the leg- islature opened, the Conser- vatives collectively have won more votes in seven byelec- tions but took only two seats. It was food for thought. One of Hudak's bigger di- lemmas moving forward is a loophole in the law that al- lows American-style politics in Ontario. e issue involves political action committees, the third-party special-interest groups that spend hundreds of millions of dol- lars in the United States supporting tar- geted candidates on specifi c issues and relentlessly attacking others. Big labour has adopted the approach in Ontario to great eff ect. e eff orts have sparked Hudak's ire because the Ontario Election Act allows the sort of spending that would be illegal under the federal statute and in a couple of provinces. In Ontario, the big political action committee is the union-funded Working Families Ontario. It has spent "$6 mil- lion to ensure their infl uence over an- other union boss-friendly government," according to a new web site, workingca- nadians.ca, funded by business and sup- ported by the Canadian Federation of In- dependent Business and Merit Canada, a construction industry group that lobbies for open shops. Workingcanadians.ca is a reaction to the union group that attacked every Conservative leader with an abundant budget for TV and billboard ads for more than a decade. Now the Conservatives are fi ghting back by encouraging their supporters to step up and fund a dirty war. In addi- tion to workingcanadians.ca, there's now also working fami- liesexposed.ca, another coun- terattack web site. "It is estimated that the Working Families' advertising budget was up to $10,000,000 in 2011 alone," the site contends, comparing the numbers to the $5 million or so spent by the Liberals and the Conservatives and the $1.77 million spent by the NDP that year. Working Families "has put millions of dollars into attack advertising against Ontario PC leaders since 2003. ey even bought air time during the Oscars in 2011 — some of the most expensive ad real es- tate on television!" e payoff s have been palpable, the site says, with generous settlements for the public sector unions, especially those af- fi liated with Working Families. Workingcanadians.ca echoes those sen- timents: "Union bosses demand and get increased spending and regulations which drives up taxes, debt, and defi cits which make it harder for business to grow and create jobs," says the blurb on that site. "Jobs and businesses will leave Ontario to friendlier neighbouring jurisdictions like Michigan." e site solicits donations starting at $25 via PayPal and promises it will make and broadcast ads in the same way the union-funded group has attacked Hudak. Just in case you think the rhetoric is a little strong, here's the raison d'être blurb from the working families.ca site: "Working Families was created by the labour move- ment with the goal of making voters aware of policies that threaten the well-being of working families in Ontario. e agenda of these radical right-wing politicians who want to see Ontario compete with low- wage and low service states in the U.S. is something that we will expose and fi ght." Clearly, these are two remarkably dif- ferent and entrenched viewpoints of the Ontario political landscape. e real win- ners here will be Rogers, CTV, CBC, and Global as they earn revenues from the ads along with outdoor media companies like Pattison Outdoor Advertising. Whether the counterattack sites will have an eff ect is unclear. It won't be in Hu- dak's election platform, but you can also bet one of the fi rst pieces of legislation tabled should the Progressive Conserva- tives win a majority will be an amend- ment to the Election Act to outlaw third- party advertising. LT Ian Harvey has been a journalist for 35 years writing about a diverse range of issues including legal and political aff airs. His e-mail address is ianharvey@rogers.com. BY MAY CHENG AND STEVEN REOSENHEK For Law Times M W Queen's Park Ian Harvey

• Cover